Mallowram

The problem is that language doesn't produce itself. Re-checking, correcting error is not relevant. Error minimization is not the fount of survival, remaining variable for tasks is. The lossy encyclopedia is neither here nor there, it's a mistaken path:

"Language, Halliday argues, "cannot be equated with 'the set of all grammatical sentences', whether that set is conceived of as finite or infinite". He rejects the use of formal logic in linguistic theories as "irrelevant to the understanding of language" and the use of such approaches as "disastrous for linguistics"."

Just an experiment to see how lost the CS community is at the AI psychosis threshold. The industry has simply no clue to what it's automating in arbitrary words. Unless you all grasp the dimensions of the problem, the industry is a dinosaur. And this Alexander wand-waving ignores the basic scientific problem, waved away in cog-sci fantasies. The fact is language is a dinosaur. It's Pleistocene nonsense, and it should be a warning these Chat suicides and psychosis of what's yet to come if we continue using arbitrary language as a stand-in for human thought. It becomes more obvious with every stage of acceleration and now automation.

It only makes sense to scientific thinkers who think in correlation, and know how degraded words and sentences are. Anyone who accepts word statements as valid is at loss. The only role of language is to refute itself.

Words don't represent thoughts in any way shape or form. They externalize bias as a pretext to communication, which is arbitary. Every word is a metaphor, every word is mythological. These are empirical facts developed from Aristotle, Cassirer, Halliday into Fedorenko, yet CS takes not note of it. Language has no form that refers or represents anything in reality in any sense of concatenation. They are gibberish. This is where humanity is off the rails. Word statements are only 'about' status, dominance, control. Statements in arbitrary words do not exist as references or representations. A statement like which person makes more accurate predictions is basically nonsense, it's applying arbitrary values to events subjectively. Once we understand prediction has nothing to do with how brains work, it's basically an animal that has no relationship to others or itself except as to extract value and control. The argument is simply over your head unless you grasp the fundamentals: words do not work. Please don't pretend others don't grasp these ideas, brilliant minds have been dissecting the illusions of words since Aristotle. "Marshall McLuhan's idea of the "schizophrenic alphabet" is a provocative metaphor for his theory that the phonetic alphabet fundamentally altered human consciousness, leading to a fragmented, detached, and individualistic psychology."

That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic relationship between brains and machines?

First off, we don't use predictions, that's another model, it's false (Spontaneous Brain Northoff or read Mofakham's papers).

In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves primarily status gain, not know knowledge transmission (I proved this from the first statement above as well).

The reality is CS built a math model from totally false premises as it relates to communication and knowledge. It works for efficient value trading using symbols in place of actions. Does it have a future, no.

The problem is how do we shift to a real neurodynamic system of sharing?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXtU97SCjxaHCrf8UVeQGYaj...

Doesn't require models in dynamics, coordination or otherwise.

The brain is oscillatory and dynamic, everything is in there. It's lossless. The analog nature of compression is limitless. This system if you can call it that, is inseparable from the universe ("The World"). Everything in the model-free system is specific. Nothing is arbitrary here. It's merely idiosyncratic. Words are the other end of this: post-hoc, separate from thought, arbitrary, massively illusory. Language is completely irrelevant to consciousness and is the main reason we cannot acheive it. The slogan for humans should be words anonymous.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27096882/

The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/

btw what this means neurobiologically/neurodynamically is that arbitrary language's only function is to refute itself. That is its only form of reasoning or logic in grammar. It's only a temporary palliative that eventually gets revealed (AI does a great job of this, better that media or the web) that embeds simian bias seamlessly. It demands a direct, concatenated, irreducible form of signaling.

The clearest direct claim is if there are no contradictions then language is impossible.

Language is not a "reflection of reality" in any way shape or form: reality is always specific, language is always arbitrary.

We're currently in a neurodynamic/neurobiological overthrow of psychodynamic principles that obviates in presocrats onwards.

The fact is language has nothing really to do with reality and has only to do with subjective biases that arbitrarily perform gibberish in the stead of status-gain, control, etc (pick any primate bias that Aristotle onwards was unconscious to).

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

The problem of the GEB is it's containment in symbols. Godel was unaware of the the potential for direct perception, and ecological psychology, and coordination dynamics. All three are possible non-contradictory paths to direct perception. Time to put math aside and search for new possibility.

As humans don't think in language, ie, there is no direct contact between what we think we think, and how we externalize what we think we think arbitrarily, empirically language is primarily about these biases and only secondarily about communication. This is, again, the Achilles hell of CS, NLP, generative linguistics. It's impossible for anyone to disagree with this function of language since 2016. The role for LLMs to operate language is zilch, as you admit LLMs can't uncover this, train, align this out of function.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

This is an idealized fantasy of language. Language is primarily about patriarchal dominance, control, status, mate-selection, topophilia, and secondarily about communicating ideas. The dark matter of language is expressed in mythological ideas like states, property, law, etc. People are starting to notice we can't solve very simple problems like climate extinction. How the primary forms in language are status oriented.

words, symbols, sentences, tokens, all are arbitrary. They stay arbitrary unless there is an irrefutable target like a tumor. This is the basis of CS

btw - this is the Achilles heel to CS "Nothing is specific to neural networks." Pretty fascinating that the illusion of counting, math, algebra will all ne superseded by measurement in analog, a measurement that requires no math, simply differences in syntax. How we code that is up for grabs. How did all these math-heads take control of reality through counting? Really a bonkers group of capitalists had nothing to do except dominate by counted value. Rather insane.

No my approach is there is no model. Nothing is reducible. It's a neurodynamic approach. The idea of a world model is oxymoronic, the brain doesn't reduce anything to models, making math and logic irrelevant. Nothing you are talking about is really a first principle, how can it be, it's retrofitted using symbols. Yours is a psychodynamic approach, the post-hoc representations brains create is enough for you. You expect reason to be the threshold. I see no reasons for anything, simply actions. The computer I expect uses no math.

Arguments are all built in neural-syntax specifics. How they externalize as arbitrary points is largely irrelevant, which demonstrates how humans go extinct: confusing the two. The basic 'fact' is words and the conduit metaphor paradox are never resolvable, they are inherently contradictory, which makes words almost entirely irrelevant, and gibberish. AI can never solve this because CS never began at first principles. In essence, AI is the most advanced demonstration of language's total irrelevance.

If you don't grasp the basic ideas of paradox questioning the nature of language beginning in presocratics and winding their way through Aristotle, Socrates, Kant Hume and many others and also appearing in Advaita Vedanta (eg Nisargadatta), then I'm afraid staring here isn't really going to help you. Philosophy has ben questioning whether language is valid from the start. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradictio...

Aristotle: There are no contradictions.

Cassirer: “Only when we put away words will be able to reach the initial conditions, only then will we have direct perception. All linguistic denotation is essentially ambiguous–and in this ambiguity, this “paronymia” of words is the source of all myths…this self-deception is rooted in language, which is forever making a game of the human mind, ever ensnaring it in that iridescent play of meanings…even theoretical knowledge becomes phantasmagoria; for even knowledge can never reproduce the true nature of things as they are but must frame their essence in “concepts.” Consequently all schemata which science evolves in order to classify, organize and summarize the phenomena of the real, turns out to be nothing but arbitrary schemes. So knowledge, as well as myth, language, and art, has been reduced to a kind of fiction–a fiction that recommends its usefulness, but must not be measured by any strict standard of truth, if it is not to melt away into nothingness.” Cassirer Language and Myth

Even Shannon knew the limits of information late in career. AI is not information, it's signaling. And it embeds without decipherment or segregating dominance, bias, control, manipulation. The dark matter of language we can't extract.

"Shannon warned in 1956 that information theory “has perhaps been ballooned to an importance beyond its actual accomplishments” and that information theory is “not necessarily relevant to such fields as psychology, economics, and other social sciences.” Shannon concluded: “The subject of information theory has certainly been sold, if not oversold.” [Claude E. Shannon, “The Bandwagon,” IRE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 2, No. 1 (March 1956), p. 3.]"

Rather the opposite, that language is about social structure primarily and propositional secondarily.

While McKenna is interesting, it's still metaphysical and probably nonsense. If you stick to hard science, aphasia studies reveal language and thought have nothing to do with one another, which means language is arbitrary gibberish that predominantly encodes status, dominance, control, mate-selection, land acquisition etc.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27096882/

Think of a future where spatial analog rules over binary legacy as the latter is phased out. Now you can see where the bets are wrong.

In 1973 Basil Bernstein studied how UK scores in math defied class boundaries while scores in reading comprehension/essays stayed tied to them, and he developed a theory with Halliday that language embeds so much that we cannot decipher easily: dominance, status, control, land-centering, gender/mate-selection, and much more, that they assumed language was far more a social system of primate-simian signaling rather than what Shannon and classical linguists took as "communication". My guess is, LLMs are really unresolvable revelations of these hidden nuances. In a way, LLMs demand a specific language, which doesn't exist, in order to function.

There is no intent in words in and of themselves. Intent always comes from something specific tied to neural syntax, which is lost in words. That's an illusion. There is intensionality, which is different, which is what you're actually talking about. Intensionality is vague, it's not meaningful without context. The problem automating words is AI can't solve the conduit metaphor, which is the idea the words alone code meaning. They can't. This is the achilles heel of AI.

Words aren't specific, they're arbitrary. Any model using the arbitrary to stand in for action or specifics will always be mid. Words are in this way gibberish. Only actions are real. That's the achilles heel Warzel can't see, he's a wordsmith.

No word is ever accurate/specific, it's only a metaphor for the event. No software can ever resolve metaphors to real, irreducible events. This had to be taught day one in LLM/NLP/ML for the field to be real. It wasn't the field is false.

The problem is the industry hasn't solved the conduit metaphor paradox, so AI will always remain a magic act in public view that goes nowhere and a a specific tool that can help solve real problems in chemistry and biology. As a general tool it can never work. Words are arbitrary, they're meaningless.