consider that there are examples of this among the species, it’s evidently substantially variable from birth, perhaps it starts before birth, anyway imagine not being burdened by internal mental housekeeping, the benefits of being naturally unburdened that way, some benefits this might have

one benefit could be that if an example creature were this way they may not be aware of deceptions generated by their central nervous system, I mean consider the potential advantages of blunted awareness this way, an example would believe the nonsense generated by their CNS, be convinced, more convincing maybe

so anyway here’s a hypothesis, that nature maintains this variability in the population because of the utility of deception

transition said:

consider that there are examples of this among the species, it’s evidently substantially variable from birth, perhaps it starts before birth, anyway imagine not being burdened by internal mental housekeeping, the benefits of being naturally unburdened that way, some benefits this might have

one benefit could be that if an example creature were this way they may not be aware of deceptions generated by their central nervous system, I mean consider the potential advantages of blunted awareness this way, an example would believe the nonsense generated by their CNS, be convinced, more convincing maybe

so anyway here’s a hypothesis, that nature maintains this variability in the population because of the utility of deception

more to it, the utility of deniability, of motivation, gravitates toward that territory, operates in that territory

so i’d add psychopathies to that

I don’t know about “mental housekeeping”, in fact I’m not sure what you mean by that.

But “acceptance of authority”, even when the authority is spouting absolute bullshit, certainly seems to be a very common feature of the human brain.

I presume it is beneficial for the survival of tribal groups, and I can see how that might work.

When the tribes increase to continental size, and have access to nuclear weapons, it might not work so well in the long-term.

This is the transition we know and love.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know about “mental housekeeping”, in fact I’m not sure what you mean by that.

But “acceptance of authority”, even when the authority is spouting absolute bullshit, certainly seems to be a very common feature of the human brain.

I presume it is beneficial for the survival of tribal groups, and I can see how that might work.

When the tribes increase to continental size, and have access to nuclear weapons, it might not work so well in the long-term.

surely you do some arranging and organizing in the home in your head

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know about “mental housekeeping”, in fact I’m not sure what you mean by that.

But “acceptance of authority”, even when the authority is spouting absolute bullshit, certainly seems to be a very common feature of the human brain.

I presume it is beneficial for the survival of tribal groups, and I can see how that might work.

When the tribes increase to continental size, and have access to nuclear weapons, it might not work so well in the long-term.

surely you do some arranging and organizing in the home in your head

No, unless I do it subconsciously, I spend effectively zero time imagining myself doing the vacuuming, for instance.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know about “mental housekeeping”, in fact I’m not sure what you mean by that.

But “acceptance of authority”, even when the authority is spouting absolute bullshit, certainly seems to be a very common feature of the human brain.

I presume it is beneficial for the survival of tribal groups, and I can see how that might work.

When the tribes increase to continental size, and have access to nuclear weapons, it might not work so well in the long-term.

surely you do some arranging and organizing in the home in your head

No, unless I do it subconsciously, I spend effectively zero time imagining myself doing the vacuuming, for instance.

but you do organize the home in your head, surely

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

surely you do some arranging and organizing in the home in your head

No, unless I do it subconsciously, I spend effectively zero time imagining myself doing the vacuuming, for instance.

but you do organize the home in your head, surely

Depends what those words mean, in that order.

so they’re just data storage media

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, unless I do it subconsciously, I spend effectively zero time imagining myself doing the vacuuming, for instance.

but you do organize the home in your head, surely

Depends what those words mean, in that order.

well, it doesn’t mean there’s a three legged green goat standing on its hind leg smoking a pipe looking in through your window while tapping out an SOS morse code with one of its front hooves

SCIENCE said:

so they’re just data storage media

Look on it as a library full of books. You can stroll down each aisel and find the book you are looking for.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

but you do organize the home in your head, surely

Depends what those words mean, in that order.

well, it doesn’t mean there’s a three legged green goat standing on its hind leg smoking a pipe looking in through your window while tapping out an SOS morse code with one of its front hooves

Strangely enough, i never imagined it did mean that.

If you actually want to discuss, it might help to provide more information about what you did mean.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Depends what those words mean, in that order.

well, it doesn’t mean there’s a three legged green goat standing on its hind leg smoking a pipe looking in through your window while tapping out an SOS morse code with one of its front hooves

Strangely enough, i never imagined it did mean that.

If you actually want to discuss, it might help to provide more information about what you did mean.

Might be a good idea to arrange the words like the thoughts in your head?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Depends what those words mean, in that order.

well, it doesn’t mean there’s a three legged green goat standing on its hind leg smoking a pipe looking in through your window while tapping out an SOS morse code with one of its front hooves

Strangely enough, i never imagined it did mean that.

If you actually want to discuss, it might help to provide more information about what you did mean.

how many things can it mean

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

well, it doesn’t mean there’s a three legged green goat standing on its hind leg smoking a pipe looking in through your window while tapping out an SOS morse code with one of its front hooves

Strangely enough, i never imagined it did mean that.

If you actually want to discuss, it might help to provide more information about what you did mean.

how many things can it mean

A near infinite number.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Strangely enough, i never imagined it did mean that.

If you actually want to discuss, it might help to provide more information about what you did mean.

how many things can it mean

A near infinite number.

I think you fibs, give me a few examples, but start off with the likely nearest probable meaning

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

how many things can it mean

A near infinite number.

I think you fibs, give me a few examples, but start off with the likely nearest probable meaning

By far the most probable meaning (in my opinion) of the words used is that you are talking about imagining the physical processes known as “housekeeping”, such as vacuuming, or washing the dishes, but you have said (or at least implied) that you didn’t mean that, so I just don’t know what you did mean, as I said before.

I think he means monitoring mental processes in order to try to maintain a realistic worldview, rather than just taking first impressions and kneejerk reactions for granted.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A near infinite number.

I think you fibs, give me a few examples, but start off with the likely nearest probable meaning

By far the most probable meaning (in my opinion) of the words used is that you are talking about imagining the physical processes known as “housekeeping”, such as vacuuming, or washing the dishes, but you have said (or at least implied) that you didn’t mean that, so I just don’t know what you did mean, as I said before.

even after reading the thread title, which better than hints at internal mental housekeeping

anyway i’m pointing at it now

Bubblecar said:

I think he means monitoring mental processes in order to try to maintain a realistic worldview, rather than just taking first impressions and kneejerk reactions for granted.

when you arrange your study, for example, are you not arranging something of your head, the home in your head

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I think he means monitoring mental processes in order to try to maintain a realistic worldview, rather than just taking first impressions and kneejerk reactions for granted.

when you arrange your study, for example, are you not arranging something of your head, the home in your head

studio, but study probably would have done

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I think you fibs, give me a few examples, but start off with the likely nearest probable meaning

By far the most probable meaning (in my opinion) of the words used is that you are talking about imagining the physical processes known as “housekeeping”, such as vacuuming, or washing the dishes, but you have said (or at least implied) that you didn’t mean that, so I just don’t know what you did mean, as I said before.

even after reading the thread title, which better than hints at internal mental housekeeping

anyway i’m pointing at it now

I have indeed read the thread title, which is why I am asking for clarification of what those words mean, when placed in that order on this occasion.

In this room, I’ve largely been arranging various recurring instances of guilt and resentment.

“You really ought to tune that harp you know, when was the last time you played it?”

“How much did you pay for that digital bagpipe you hardly ever pick up, over a grand wasn’t it?”

“You never did finish that book, did you? Or that one or that one. And you still haven’t started that one or those two or…”

Having a phobia of every automated body function would not be a good phobia.

https://www.premiernaturalhealthfl.com/blog/bodyautomation

Our bodies are smart, like really smart. Think about all of the things your body does without any effort or thought. When was the last time you thought about breathing? I know when I actively think about it, I get off rhythm, can’t remember how to actually do it, and have to go into yoga breathing just to reset. Thankfully, we do not have conscious control over these extremely important functions in our bodies. Could you imagine having to sentiently control your breathing while sleeping? Or better yet, how difficult would it be to keep your heart rate low while listening to a great song on the radio? I for one, am happy to have an Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) that will do the important, life required functions for me.

More…

Imagine no internal mental housekeeping

You could get AI to do it.

seriously though stored-program computation requires that computation occur beyond merely storing programs

SCIENCE said:

seriously though stored-program computation requires that computation occur beyond merely storing programs

Haven’t they detected quantum activity in the brain

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

seriously though stored-program computation requires that computation occur beyond merely storing programs

Haven’t they detected quantum activity in the brain

Someone will do a quantum experiment and end up entangling everyone’s memories.

That should be fun.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

seriously though stored-program computation requires that computation occur beyond merely storing programs

Haven’t they detected quantum activity in the brain

Someone will do a quantum experiment and end up entangling everyone’s memories.

That should be fun.

cognition is classical

SCIENCE said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Haven’t they detected quantum activity in the brain

Someone will do a quantum experiment and end up entangling everyone’s memories.

That should be fun.

cognition is classical

How do you know that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone will do a quantum experiment and end up entangling everyone’s memories.

That should be fun.

cognition is classical

How do you know that?

classical conditioning

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone will do a quantum experiment and end up entangling everyone’s memories.

That should be fun.

cognition is classical

How do you know that?

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

cognition is classical

How do you know that?

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

But they are composed of things that exist at the quantum scale.

And there is no clear-cut dividing line between the two.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

cognition is classical

How do you know that?

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

Essentially we agree with Bubblecar:

• cognition is computation
• classical computers perform computation
• although the transistors in classical computers rely on quantum effects the computers are nevertheless not called quantum computers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How do you know that?

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

But they are composed of things that exist at the quantum scale.

And there is no clear-cut dividing line between the two.

Sure, meet you down at this

https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centre-quantum-software-and-information

ranch and we can go tell them that their quantum computers are indistinguishable from classical computers.

In the nicest way possible, Jesus Christ not this again.

dv said:

In the nicest way possible, Jesus Christ not this again.

Neddie Seagoon “It’s a chip off the old shoulder”

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

But they are composed of things that exist at the quantum scale.

And there is no clear-cut dividing line between the two.

Sure, meet you down at this

https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centre-quantum-software-and-information

ranch and we can go tell them that their quantum computers are indistinguishable from classical computers.

Why bring electronic computers into this?

They are very different machines from animal brains.

I would contend that most high-level mental housekeeping is performed using our internal monologue that is most like limited to intellgent animals like great apes, dolphins etc and that more mundane tasks are performed on an unconscious level. As an example a human who will need to eat soon wonders what they might have for the next meal while a tiger will simply feel hungry and would unconsciously start preparing to hunt.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I would contend that most high-level mental housekeeping is performed using our internal monologue that is most like limited to intellgent animals like great apes, dolphins etc and that more mundane tasks are performed on an unconscious level. As an example a human who will need to eat soon wonders what they might have for the next meal while a tiger will simply feel hungry and would unconsciously start preparing to hunt.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Because the structures that generate it exist on the macroscopic scale.

But they are composed of things that exist at the quantum scale.

And there is no clear-cut dividing line between the two.

Sure, meet you down at this

https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centre-quantum-software-and-information

ranch and we can go tell them that their quantum computers are indistinguishable from classical computers.

In the nicest way possible, Jesus Christ not this again.

Neddie Seagoon “It’s a chip off the old shoulder”

Why bring electronic computers into this?

They are very different machines from animal brains.

Agree, they’re very different in subcomponent composition but computationally they’re pretty much equivalent.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Neddie Seagoon “It’s a chip off the old shoulder”

Why bring electronic computers into this?

They are very different machines from animal brains.

Agree, they’re very different in subcomponent composition but computationally they’re pretty much equivalent.

How do you know that?

I’d go so far as saying that it seems quite likely that they are very different computationally.

Not that I know if they are or they aren’t.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Neddie Seagoon “It’s a chip off the old shoulder”

Why bring electronic computers into this?

They are very different machines from animal brains.

Agree, they’re very different in subcomponent composition but computationally they’re pretty much equivalent.

How do you know that?

I’d go so far as saying that it seems quite likely that they are very different computationally.

Not that I know if they are or they aren’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why bring electronic computers into this?

They are very different machines from animal brains.

Agree, they’re very different in subcomponent composition but computationally they’re pretty much equivalent.

How do you know that?

I’d go so far as saying that it seems quite likely that they are very different computationally.

Not that I know if they are or they aren’t.

By philosophy and metacognition. We suppose as dv says it’s been years since mathematicians acknowledged that electromachine proofs are as acceptable as biomachine proofs so we agree, if the process that generates the result is isomorphic, then the result is achieved by processes that are isomorphic.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Agree, they’re very different in subcomponent composition but computationally they’re pretty much equivalent.

How do you know that?

I’d go so far as saying that it seems quite likely that they are very different computationally.

Not that I know if they are or they aren’t.

By philosophy and metacognition. We suppose as dv says it’s been years since mathematicians acknowledged that electromachine proofs are as acceptable as biomachine proofs so we agree, if the process that generates the result is isomorphic, then the result is achieved by processes that are isomorphic.

I didn’t see where dv said that, but it seems like a pretty weak argument. There are many things animal brains can do that electronic computers have no idea about.

Seems like I’ve outsourced my mental housekeeping to SCIENCE

dv said:

Seems like I’ve outsourced my mental housekeeping to SCIENCE

No offence to SCIENCE intended, but I’m not sure that’s a good idea. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How do you know that?

I’d go so far as saying that it seems quite likely that they are very different computationally.

Not that I know if they are or they aren’t.

By philosophy and metacognition. We suppose as dv says it’s been years since mathematicians acknowledged that electromachine proofs are as acceptable as biomachine proofs so we agree, if the process that generates the result is isomorphic, then the result is achieved by processes that are isomorphic.

I didn’t see where dv said that, but it seems like a pretty weak argument. There are many things animal brains can do that electronic computers have no idea about.

Fair point, we also agree that it is a weak argument that {{there were many things classical computers in 2024 were able to do that classical electromachine computers in 1970 have no idea about} therefore {they are quite different computationally}}.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I would contend that most high-level mental housekeeping is performed using our internal monologue that is most like limited to intellgent animals like great apes, dolphins etc and that more mundane tasks are performed on an unconscious level. As an example a human who will need to eat soon wonders what they might have for the next meal while a tiger will simply feel hungry and would unconsciously start preparing to hunt.

my same seems to be, though not sure all of it lends to words or being worded, abstraction of, but i’m appreciating that whatever does or seems to, something to work with

not entirely sure the wordly press agent ought be believed with all that it suggests or offers, and of course there’s the situation some people have no wordly press agent practicing what might be said in company, shouted or whatever