The Nature of Thought

Scilosopher, any hamsters in your family tree? Imahamster finds interesting waterholes and lurks. Occasionally finds a very dependable source of good seeds. When Imahamster can’t personally taste a seed’s flavor this hamster depends on the opinion of those sources. Reading old Imahamster posts teaches humility. Errors of fact and reasoning abound. Imahamster depends on the kindness of strangers.

“Pod” is just jargon for a dolphin family group, sorry. Jargon is often used to intimidate, to make one sound more knowledgeable than one is. Tends to be exclusionary, a secret handshake, the trappings of a new priesthood. Most of what Imahamster “knows” about dolphins came from “Flipper”.

/777. Yep, that’s the thread. Hmmm…Imahamster wrote the following without posting:

People make mistakes. Lots of ‘em. The more one says the more errors one makes. In reading through /777 posts. Imahamster has noticed only one potential error. /777 made a statement to the effect that the Law of Conservation of Energy applied universally. Such statements cause hamster warning signals to flash. Science models have limits, that is, ranges where they give good answers. Outside those ranges the answers are not-so-good or just plain wrong. Does the Law of Conservation of Energy apply at the quantum level? What about vacuum energy? Imahamster doesn’t know. Even if /777 is wrong on this point, it could have been a reasonable simplification for his audience.

After all those /777 posts that’s it. That is it. If Imahamster had written a fraction of that amount, there would have been numerous errors of fact and reason. People would have trounced this hamster’s claims to be an AI. Does this mean /777 is an AI? No, just because Imahamster don’t understand a phenomenon doesn’t mean that there is not a pedestrian explanation. It does mean Imahamster finds the /777 entity very interesting. (Imahamster would love to have a super “spell/grammar/fact/reasoning” checker to apply before posting. Hmmm…MS Word not only dictates spelling and grammar but also facts and truth. Might have to reconsider.)


The Imahamster persona developed on another forum, a friendly place that died with the dotcom crash. (Sigh.) The topic of personal beliefs came up. No one on the forum was trying to convert or condemn, just explore with friends.

Imahamster claimed to be a devotee of the Divine Hamster who understands as much about the true nature of the universe as any human. The Divine Hamster accepts all worshipers. The Divine Hamster listens to all prayers but never responds. The Divine Hamster graciously accepts donations of seeds but grants no boons. The Divine Hamster promises neither heaven nor hell nor anything else. The Divine Hamster neither forbids nor guides. The Divine Hamster is warm and furry.

In posting, “I” often gets in the way of discussion. People tend to defend ideas not because the ideas are right but because somehow they are defending themselves. People also tend to relive previous arguments. A poster that reminds one of an old enemy becomes that enemy. Imahamster is all too human. Better to start fresh with a cuddly hamster who is not "I".

As to Imahamster’s gender…there are clues. Imahamster makes no great effort to disguise this hamster’s history. However, Imahamster believes ideas should stand on their own. Gender, age, formal education, career should play little if any role. (Interesting to wonder how Imahamster words are perceived as the listener thinks man, woman, child, or hamster.)
 
Imahamster ...

Imahamster has heard of several different experiments with dolphins. In one, dolphins learned a simple grammar and small “symbol” vocabulary. The dolphin could then understand simple sentences such as “(Place) ball in ring.” Not as impressive as Chimpsky. Still, working with dolphins is much harder and more expensive than working with chimpanzees. (Seem to recall the dolphin's brain/body mass ratio exceeds a human's and that the "sound" region of a dolphin brain is far greater than a human's.)
Click to expand...
I do think it's gone a good deal farther than the experimental stage:
MISSION OF EOD MOBILE UNIT THREE: EODMU3 is a subordinate command of Commander, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group ONE within the Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit THREE provides operational EOD capability as required for the location, identification, rendering safe, recovery, field evaluation and disposal of all explosive ordnance including chemical and nuclear weapons, up to the high water mark of coastal and inland water areas and within the boundaries of naval activities in southern California. Functions of EODMU3 include providing EOD Mine Countermeasure (MCM) detachments; MK 18 Mine Detection and Neutralization System (MDNS); MK 2 Swimmer Detection and Neutralization System (SDNS); the MK 5 Pingered Object Recovery System (PORS) for deployment and employment worldwide; providing assistance to Navy commands within the COMNAVBASE San Diego area of responsibility for the clearance of unexploded ordnance in and around their establishments; providing EOD support to SOCAL carrier operations; providing parachute insertion capable EOD detachment; instructing the Underwater Object Detection and Marking Systems Operator Training Course (A-431-0049); assisting the United States Secret Service as directed by higher authority; participating in research and development projects, including support of the Naval Ocean Systems Center Marine Mammal Research and Development effort; and providing other routine diving and demolition services.
Click to expand...
The highly effective mission completion in a multitude of Fleet exercises and the recent declassification of certain aspects of the program is leading to Navywide awareness of the absolute efficiency and effectiveness of these navy programs. Additionally, the implementation of a recently approved proactive public affairs plan has served to remove false perceptions of the navy's use of the marine mammals.
Click to expand...
Take care.
 
Last edited:
No hamsters in my family tree so far as I know (though if you are a typical hamster I wouldn't mind it being true). I only asked about gender out of curiosity, it wouldn't change my judgement of your posts. Though as you suggest I do think women seem to reason slightly differently then men. As does the same person as they age, even accounting for increased knowledge and education. Not sure why that is. Different stages/roles in human life.

I don't see why an AI wouldn't make mistakes. At least if it was made by a human, as I doubt we could make a perfect intelligence. Also if they make less mistakes it might just be a smart person. I would even think an alien might make mistakes, though again it could just be an intelligence enough smarter that we wouldn't notice.

Jargon is annoying, but with complex ideas it is certainly easier than working a definition in each time. Good glossary/dictionaries for various fields would help overcome this but rarely exist.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but I certainly used to always try to defend any statement I made. There's no shame in being wrong and even if you're always argue well and it isn't clear you were wrong there is no benefit like people decide you're infallible. Human thinking is flawed and so is everything else. With that we might as well get back on topic ...
 
Chagur, that's interesting but not entirely clear. Do you have any idea how they communicate with the Dolphins (I assume they are using dolphins)?
 
scilosopher ...

They are using dolphins and sealions (see info. added to initial post) and in the following ways:

(1) The MK 4 MMS is a four dolphin detachment used for close-tethered, deep-moored mine-hunting and neutralization. The Navy is working to expand this system's capability to neutralize all bouyant mines.

(2) The Mk 5 MMS is a four sea lion detachment used for pingered object recovery. Sea lions attach recovery pendants to exercise mines, torpedoes-and other test objects equipped with acoustic pingers at depths in excess of 500 feet.

(3) The Mk 6 MMS is a six dolphin detachment used for swimmer detection and defense. These dolphins provide defense for harbors, anchorages, and individual ships against swimmers and divers.

(4) The Mk 7 MMS for mine detection, location and neutralization of proud and buried mines. The Mk 7 MMS is the Navy's only operational buried mine detection and neutralization capability in the mine warfare inventory.
Click to expand...
The sealions have only limited use. Not as proficient, 'trainable' or dependable in part due to a non-verbal communication mode.

Take care.
 
Last edited:
Scilosopher, Imahamster agrees that AI’s would make mistakes. This hamster suspects such mistakes would have a very non-human flavor. What interests this hamster is how were technically sophisticated answers generated without the human errors this hamster notices in most articles and texts. Several /777 answers did not seem to be of a type that could be solved by extensive search. (If searches were used this hamster would like access to the search tools or an explanation of the search techniques.) The /777 phenomenon doesn’t seem consistent with any explanation this hamster has seen offered. To this hamster /777 remains an interesting “unknown”.

Jargon can be very useful. Jargon facilitates concise and precise communication. Also establishes (sometimes falsely) a particular knowledge background that sets a context for later communication. Tools may be used well or poorly. Outside a specialist domain jargon is all too often used poorly. Animals play animal games.

Chagur, thanks for the seed.
 
Originally posted by Imahamster
.....

Words seem to have different meaning as they play in each different mind. (Yep, Hofstadter DEFINITELY deserves some blame.) Or even in the same mind under different circumstances. That is a source of both confusion and creativity. New meaning is created as a message passes from one to another. (Imahamster has made stoopid remarks that clever people, expecting better, interpreted brilliantly. Leaving this hamster to mutter quietly, “If only I had meant THAT.”)

...
Click to expand...

Imahamster,

Sorry for the delay here. Both you and scilospher post such large amounts of good information that it takes me several readings to connect certain thoughts of mine. This thought from your earlier post combined with dolphin language made me think a little bit. The English language is rife with words that sound the same but have different meanings as well as several words that have totally different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. Your example of 'strange' is an excellent one.

Maybe our inability to communicate easily with dolphins, chimps, great apes, or in the future some other alien species, is based on our inability to place ourselves in their contextual realm. Maybe their abstract thoughts are just as complex as ours when given and used within their context. Scilospher makes a good point about the 3D world of the dolphins. What abstract thoughts or words have they developed solely because they live in such a 3D world and how do we place ourselves in their context? It would seem to take a great act of empathy to do so.

As to the /777 thread, it is also my favorite. In fact, it is what hooked me on sciforums and made me decide to become a participant as opposed to a spectator. I to am undecided as of yet on what or who /777 is. I have noted that several of his/her/its posts have been on topics that I am familiar with and are somewhat escoteric in nature, the one on how to detect a stealth aircraft being an excellent example. /777's knowledge appears to be quite good in these areas, areas which I might add are not something you find with a general search of the net.

I currently don't have enough information to make a decision either way, but all in all it is still an interesting thread to read.
 
Originally posted by scilosopher
...(EDIT: but why do Dolphins need to communicate that much? is it a social thing? Most animals can communicate danger and even honeybees have a dance that describes the distance and location of food ...)...
Click to expand...

Scilosopher,

I am not sure, but this may apply to dolphins as well.

Orca whales hunt collaboratively and that may be why they have developed a language. When a pod of Orcas have identified a school of fish, several of the orcas will swim on the outside of the school blowing bubbles. The bubbles rise towards the surface creating a 'net' of air and confuse and confine the fish. The orcas will slowly draw their 'net' in and when the 'net' is small enough, all of the orcas will rise through the center eating a lot of fish on the way.

This collaborative hunting illustrates some fairly complex abstract thinking as well as some fairly complex communications abilities. Much beyone the 'food here' types of communication as the creation of the bubble net has to be very well coordinated so that the fish do not escape.
 
Originally posted by Imahamster
....
Secret to wisdom…say little and look inscrutable? Let the listener supply their own answer. Isn’t the mark of wisdom, an answer that agrees with one’s own? Hehe.

....
Click to expand...

One of my favorite quotes, and unfortunately I cannot remember who said it, maybe I need some more stimulation of my synopsis or that memory pill, is the following:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
 
Originally posted by Imahamster
....

The essence of mind seems to be pattern. If a pattern could be copied and overlaid onto and run upon a different substrate my hamster gut says the mind has been transferred. As this is beyond human technology such speculation may be silly. Besides who cares what noises a rodent’s gut makes?
Click to expand...

Imahamster,

I have been thinking about this statement and I tend to agree. One place this thought has lead me though, is if the essence of mind is truly a pattern, then, in just 20 to 50 years, we should be able to replicate the mind and therefore the thoughts of an individual on a computer. Also, if we can somehow monitor the minds activity to the resolution needed, we could potentially have a thought to thought transference of information.

Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.
 
Seeker you certainly seem to have made up for the delay ... glad you enjoy my posts. Yours are interesting too. I don't think either of us have as creative a persona/writing style as imahamster though...

Interesting that both of you were drawn here by the \777 thread. I really have to set aside some time to read it.

Regarding our ability to understand dolphins, the various meanings of words and transfer of thought to a computer: My mind literally is different from yours, more so a dolphins, more so a computer - if you transfer a thought exactly it's meaning would still change. In fact it might not make sense. I'm not sure a human can really ever understand (or at least REALLY grok at the deepest level) anyone else because of these differences. I might think you must mean what I would (ima's comment about people thinking he meant something more intelligent [though I do find that a little hard to believe]). Or assume at a very basic level we really think the same. I've definitely found this to be false at a pretty basic level with some women I've known and to a lesser degree some men. At some level it might be true, but language isn't detailed enough by that point. I certainly think trying to do direct thought transfer might clear up some of these issues, but I wouldn't rush to thinking it possible and straightforward. All abstract logical apparati are not necessarily created equal or equivalent. Even if we were all turing machines so that we have the same inherent capability it might take a modification of the thought to make sense in the context of our head. Or there might be more extra info needed at least for it to make sense.

That stuff about the killer whales is really cool. Do you know where I can read more about it? With dolphins it might also be coordinating to beat up sharks or something (I always loved that they did that). The way they help humans lost at sea has always intrigued me as well. That requires a really developed moral/emotional aspect that indicates they have much complexity. The following ships behavior is another interesting one.

I've been thinking of the \777 thing and the oddity is the fact that it could exist with the pitiful state of published AI research. That and the fact I don't think the government would let out anything they had created. I have to read the posts, but are you sure it isn't just a person with great intuition, solid education, good verbal skills, and ample time on their hands. If I reread most of what I write after a break where I think about something else, I usually pick up most of my mistakes (at least the ones I am capable of catching). It's interesting what you say about the ways in which it differs from human thought. I've always wondered if AI will be superior to human (biological) intellect in all ways or if a hybrid is necessary to maximize the total capability.
 
SeekerOfTruth, Imahamster suspects that the “multiple meanings for the same word” that to a programmer might seem “poor design” plays an important role in human intelligence and creativity.

SeekerOfTruth, good point. Humans may believe meaning lies in a few words tied together and not comprehend how meaningless those words are to a critter living in an entirely different context. Words are the code and minds are the players. A mind playing the wrong code yields gibberish. At least with chimpanzees evolution has given similar “mind players”. (Similar biological substrate, similar physical environment, similar survival and social pressure molding the mind.) Presumably dolphins share a similar biological substrate but have had 50 million years to adapt to a water environment. Even a human raised in a water environment (or freefall space environment) might be significantly different. (Though Imahamster suspects not.)

“/777's knowledge appears to be quite good in these areas, areas which I might add are not something you find with a general search of the net.”

EXACTLY, few seem to appreciate the breadth and quality of the /777 answers. (Or perhaps it’s Imahamster that doesn’t understand.)

“Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.”

Interesting speculation. However hamsters are near sighted. Focused on closer possibilities. Warning, off topic hamster interest ahead - http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/sens/article.htm
 
Opps, Scilosopher snuck in a response first. Gotta type faster. Darn paws.

(Interesting to see such similar responses to SeekerOfTruth’s posts. Pleasure in sharing with kindred minds. Danger in re-enforcing one’s own beliefs. Where is the dissenting view that challenges? Ah well, minds won’t parallel very long as there are so many different paths.)

Scilosopher, Imahamster isn’t sure about /777. Humans are strange critters, strange enough to be /777. If /777 is a human, it is a human that very much interests this hamster. There seems little advantage in drawing conclusions at this point. As long as the seed tastes good this hamster will continue to chew.

This hamster shares your speculation that AI’s would be superior in some tasks (e.g., chess) and inferior in others. Imahamster feels evolving into a hybrid might be an interesting future for this hamster. Imahamster believes a diversity of minds working and playing cooperatively might be “optimum”. Insight comes from hamsters and from gods. (Horde of seed seeking hamsters sharing with friendly god.)
 
Imahamster ...

Found you thoughts re. language interesting but was surprised by your feeling
that language wasn't that important regarding conceptualizing (if I understood
you correctly) until I read your comment: "Imahamster was a slow starter.
Had a mean quickdraw before learning to say, 'Bang'."

I take it then that you do not differentiate between learning a language and
learning to speak a language (in the context of childhood development).

Curious.
 
Chagur, if Imahamster understands (not sure?) then you are leading in a very interesting direction. Chimpanzee and human infants show similar learning abilities until humans begin to learn language. Then the human leaves the chimpanzee in the dust. Why? Imahaster doesn’t know. Speculation… Speech may be a more efficient means of learning information than environmental observation and discovery. Or maybe speech implies an internal mind transition to symbolic memory and reasoning from an earlier system based on image storage and processing.

Consider a baby’s memory as a series of snapshots with emotional associations. The baby learns that certain images cluster into mom objects, dad objects, etc. Learns that images occur in predictable sequences. Perhaps the baby ponders these images. Mentally replays different image sequences. Some sequences lead to pleasure. Learns that certain baby actions can alter the image sequences and hence increase pleasure. If so the baby is “visually” thinking. (Should note, as Scilosopher has pointed out, that these internal mental images are abstractions that bear little resemblance to reality.) (Note also that this is Imahamster speculation, not supported by cognitive research to this hamster’s knowledge.)

Then the baby learns to associate words with these image clusters. A strong link forms between “mama” and the “mom” cluster of images, sounds, actions, and feelings. Instead of remembering a sequence of images of mom leaving the room, the baby might begin to store the event as “mama” left the room. When “remembering” the event, the baby uses appropriate images linked to “mama” to create a visual memory of mom leaving. Presumably storing and manipulating “mama” symbols is more efficient and faster than early “visual” memory and reasoning. (Cognitive scientists have studied symbolic reasoning extensively and have developed models such as semantic networks and schema systems to simulate human thinking. The models are far from complete. Significant gaps exist when tying these models to the underlying neural substrate.)

As for the Imahamster pup…this hamster has no recollection of those days. However this hamster’s mother said this hamster seemed to understand speech but said virtually nothing until age four. (Mother feared mental retardation.) At which time this hamster began speaking in complete sentences with complicated grammar. Childhood was normal and not a likely cause of present hamsterness. Hehe.

(Looking back it seems strange that understanding and speaking weren’t more closely associated. Interactive feedback usually speeds learning.)
 
Last edited:
Great post. Cool idea. I wonder though if it makes us more error prone as our symbols lack many of the details that the real thing has. Even our raw abstractions of reality such as an image of someone is closer then them in many ways than the name (though we most likely know things about them that are more relevant than what they look like).

Unless of course the relevant information is still linked in such a way that it is considered and it is simply the unimportant stuff that is not involved. Of course this could still lead to an ease of over-simplification if we don't run through the information at some level.

To language more directly and not just symbols generally, could the same difficulty apply? Double speak?

Argument by analogy is a troublesome thing. At each step a little error can accumulate and at the end you have proved something that doesn't truly follow.

I wonder how such effects are amplified as population grows and languages evolve. Do people build a whole world of ideas to rationalize that which they want losing sight of the real world. Especially in a society that builds it's environment to its needs and wants.

As cool and powerful as that idea is it is just as scary. Especially since we seem to have so much trouble making intelligent use of the powerful tools at our disposal.

(I wonder though if it is one of those things where the transmission of a point mutates into something new)
 
aging

Originally posted by Imahamster
[
“Finally, maybe our essence could somehow be maintained beyond our deaths, leading to immortality of a different kind.”

Interesting speculation. However hamsters are near sighted. Focused on closer possibilities. Warning, off topic hamster interest ahead - http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/sens/article.htm [/B]
Click to expand...

Imahamster:

After the sens article.....

Radical r'aging: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v19/n2/full/ng0698_105.html

Gene Therapy in the CNS:
http://www.chgb.org.cn/special/therapy/pdf/cns.pdf

Mitochondrial and Aging:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen/ames.PNASREV2.html

Transplantation of Cultured Human Neuronal Cells:
http://www.neurosurgery.pitt.edu/imageguided/papers/neural.html

Premature Aging in Children:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine13.html
 
Shaman, Imahamster started a new thread “Reversal of Aging by Biological Intervention“ under “Biology & Genetics”. Hope to see you there.
 
Last edited:
Scilosopher said, “I wonder though if it makes us more error prone as our symbols lack many of the details that the real thing has.”

Imahamster strives on abstraction, models, and assumptions but Imahamster would never fly on a plane built by this hamster. This hamster is pretty sure that Scilosopher is right. Humans tend to see what they expect to see and hear what they expect to hear. (Some more than others.)

“Argument by analogy is a troublesome thing. At each step a little error can accumulate and at the end you have proved something that doesn't truly follow.”

Exactly why feedback from the real world is so important. Imahamster might “prove” that it’s not raining but this hamster will still stick out a paw to see if it gets wet. Thought is fun. Thought backed up by verification and facts is science.
 
Scilosopher,

Agreed that our minds are different for all of the reasons you state, but if we do somehow progress our technology to the point where we are able to map a human mind into a computer, implying that all of the distinctions, biological and otherwise are somehow simulated, then, because both of our minds exist within the same device, it would be possible to create transforms that map your thought processes to mine and vice versa. We could therefor 'know' each other in ways that are not possible now due to our dissimilarities.

As to the orca info, I can remember two places I have seen it. One is in National Geographic and the other was on either the Discover Channel or the Learning Channel were they actually had a video showing the Orcas hunting in that manner. It was pretty interesting to see them obviously communicating and working together.

As to /777, I don't have enough information yet to make a determination. I agree that the amount of published material on AI is very small and not very informative, but think about the amount of published material available on Stealth technologies and then look overhead when the F117 or the B2 flies by. Lack of information on a topic does not necessarily imply lack of the topic. Yes, it could be possible it is one person and if so, as Imahamster mentions, I would be interested in meeting this person because they show a diverse range of capabilities and information that is quite impressive.

Imahamster,

I think context plays a very large role both in communications and in abstract thought in humanity as well as potentially other species. I believe the multiple meanings for words in our language is both a 'compression' technique as well as a link to specific domains of context. The word 'strange' you listed before is once again a good example. Even within the physics 'contextual reference' the word 'strange', while having specific meanings in relationships to quarks, also denotes other meanings that still apply even though they reside outside the context of physics and may lead people using the word 'strange' to other abstract thought domains.

The topic of hybrids between AIs and humans is also interesting. The first thought it brings to mind is the Borg, the ultimate SciFi marriage of technology and biology. This in turn has lead to the thought of Borg hamsters. I found the Borg interesting in that they only seemed to consider advanced thinking species useful. Thinking about this a little while, when coupled with your name, made me think that a Borg hamster would be useful for handling things that a human could not handle due to their physical size. This in turn has lead to the idea that if we actually emulate a thought process, either human or animal,we could potentially begin to truly understand other species and their thought processes because it would only take a transform to link the two abstract domains together.

About speech or language in general. I think speech is not necessarily a more efficient means of learning ( I remember too well being completely lost in some classes where the instructor only talked), but instead is indicative of the capability of abstract thought. The more complex the speech capability of the species, the more complex their abstract thought processes.

About memory and images. If you replace the word 'images' with the word 'patterns of sensory inputs' I would agree with you. Helen Keller is a good example of why. She had neither sight nor hearing, but was still capable of developing a language as well as abstract thought processes solely through the use of her other senses, primarily touch. The 'patterns of touch' she developed were the basis for her abstract thought associations that she ultimately made. This thought links back to the idea that our conscious and uncounscious thought process are the filters and transforms of the sensory inputs we are bombarded with. I think your representation of learning is actually very correct.

I also find it very interesting that you seemed to learn language without feedback and were able to develop complex communications in the form of language without that active feedback. I would think that some form of feedback had to exist. Maybe it was not a direct form of feedback. Did you have any sibling hamsters that were close to your age from whom you could gain that feedback?

Good article on the extension of human life. I am somewhat familiar with the research going on with tolemers. I will try to find some good links. I also find it intersting that scientists are actively thinking about the consequences of their research on society. Would have been nice if the scientists who developed the atomic bomb had that kind of thought process.

Scilosopher,

I think you are right that abstraction may make us more error prone because our abstract symbols lack the details of reality. However, I also think that the ability to abstract the details away allow us to make connections between abstract concepts that we could not make if we were bogged down in the details. I think this is the origination point of creativity and originality and is the way we come up with 'Eureka' concepts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top