Rant

surrender to imagination plsssss plssss its so much better experiencing it in the 4D like yeah you’re going to have what you want in the 3D whenever it reflects but your attention should NOTTTT be on the 3D. don’t ignore the 3D just be indifferent and dismiss it. your 3D is not forever, i don’t care whats going on in your 3D, STAY LOYALLLL TO YOUR IMAGINATION, WHERE YOU GO IN IMAGINATION IS WHERE YOU WILL GO IN FLESH. DONT GIVE UPPPPP

assume it’s yours and keep assuming it’s yours when you think about it.

decide its yours and keep deciding its yours when you think about it.

affirm it’s yours and keep affirming it’s your when you think about it.

these are all synonyms.

assumptions are created INSTANTLY.

Assumption = something you believe to be true without proof or confirmation.

what are you telling yourself when your desire comes to your head ?

me personally i just affirm whenever i think about said desire.

don’t over complicate it.

Why there's no intelligence in Artificial Intelligence

You can blame it all on Turing. When Alan Turing invented his mathematical theory of computation, what he really tried to do was to construct a mechanical model for the processes actual mathematicians employ when they prove a mathematical theorem. He was greatly influenced by Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness theorems. Gödel developed a method to decode logical mathematical statements as numbers and in that way was able to manipulate these statements algebraically. After Turing managed to construct a model capable of performing any arbitrary computation process (which we now call "A Universal Turing Machine") he became convinced that he discovered the way the human mind works. This conviction quickly infected the scientific community and became so ubiquitous that for many years it was rare to find someone who argued differently, except on religious grounds.

There was a good reason for adopting the hypothesis that the mind is a computation machine. This premise was following the extremely successful paradigm stating that biology is physics (or, to be precise, biology is both physics and chemistry, and chemistry is physics), which reigned supreme over scientific research since the eighteenth century. It was already responsible for the immense progress that completely transformed modern biology, biochemistry, and medicine. Turing seemed to supply a solution, within this theoretical framework, for the last large piece in the puzzle. There was now a purely mechanistic model for the way brain operation yields all the complex repertoire of human (and animal) behavior.

Obviously, not every computation machine is capable of intelligent conscious thought. So, where do we draw the line? For instance, at what point can we say that a program running on a computer understands English? Turing provided a purely behavioristic test: a computation understands a language if by conversing with it we cannot distinguish it from a human.

This is quite a silly test, really. It doesn't provide any clue as to what actually happens within the artificial "mind"; it assumes that the external behavior of an entity completely encapsulates its internal state; it requires "man in the loop" to provide the final ruling; it does not state for how long and on what level should this conversation be held. Such a test may serve as a pragmatic common-sense method to filter out obvious failures, but it brings us not an ounce closer to understanding conscious thinking.

Still, the Turing Test stuck. If anyone tried to question the computational model of the mind, he was then confronted with the unavoidable question: what else can it be? After all, biology is physics, and therefore the brain is just a physical machine. Physics is governed by equations, which are all, in theory, computable (at least approximately, with errors being as small as one wishes). So, short of conjuring supernatural soul that magically produces a conscious mind out of biological matter, there can be no other solution.

Nevertheless, not everyone conformed to the new dogma. There were two tiers of reservations to computational Artificial Intelligence. The first, maintained, for example, by the Philosopher John Searl, didn't object to idea that a computation device may, in principle, emulate any human intellectual capability. However, claimed Searl, a simulation of a conscious mind is not conscious in itself.

To demonstrate this point Searl envisioned a person who doesn't know a single word in Chinese, sitting in a secluded room. He receives Chinese texts from the outside through a small window and is expected to return responses in Chinese. To do that he uses written manuals that contain the AI algorithm which incorporates a comprehensive understanding of the Chinese language. Therefore, a person fluent in Chinese that converses with the "room" shall deduce, based on Turing Test, that it understands the language. However, in fact there's no one there but a man using a printed recipe to convert an input message he doesn't understands to an output message he doesn't understands. So, who in the room understands Chinese?

The next tier of opposition to computationalism was maintained by the renowned physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose, claiming that the mind has capabilities which no computational process can reproduce. Penrose considered a computational process that imitates a human mathematician. It analyses mathematical conjecture of a certain type and tries to deduce the answer to that problem. To arrive at a correct answer the process must employ valid logical inferences. The quality of such computerized mathematician is measured by the scope of problems it can solve.

What Penrose proved is that such a process can never verify in any logically valid way that its own processing procedures represent valid logical deductions. In fact, if it assumes, as part of its knowledge base, that its own operations are necessarily logically valid, then this assumption makes them invalid. In other words, a computational machine cannot be simultaneously logically rigorous and aware of being logically rigorous.

A human mathematician, on the other hand, is aware of his mental processes and can verify for himself that he is making correct deductions. This is actually an essential part of his profession. It follows that, at least with respect to mathematicians, cognitive functions cannot be replicated computationally.

Neither Searl's position nor Penrose's was accepted by the mainstream, mainly because, if not computation, "what else can it be?". Penrose's suggestion that mental processes involve quantum effects was rejected offhandedly, as "trying to explicate one mystery by swapping it with another mystery". And the macroscopic hot, noisy brain seemed a very implausible place to look for quantum phenomena, which typically occur in microscopic, cold and isolated systems.

Fast forward several decades. Finaly, it seemed as though the vision of true Artificial Intelligence technology started bearing fruits. A class of algorithms termed Deep Neural Networks (DNN) achieved, at last, some human-like capabilities. It managed to identify specific objects in pictures and videos, generate photorealistic images, translate voice to text, and support a wide variety of other pattern recognition and generation tasks. Most impressively, it seemed to have mastered natural language and could partake in an advanced discourse. The triumph of computational AI appeared more feasible than ever. Or was it?   

During my years as undergraduate and graduate student I sometimes met fellow students who, at first impression, appeared to be far more conversant in the academic courses subject matter than me. They were highly confident and knew a great deal about things that were only briefly discussed in lectures. Therefore, I was vastly surprised when it turned out they were not particularly good students, and that they usually scored worse than me in the exams. It took me some time to realize that these people hadn't really possessed a better understanding of the curricula. They just adopted the correct jargon, employed the right words, so that, to the layperson ears, they had sounded as if they knew what they were talking about.

I was reminded of these charlatans when I encountered natural language AIs such as Chat GPT. At first glance, their conversational abilities seem impressive – fluent, elegant and decisive. Their style is perfect. However, as you delve deeper, you encounter all kinds of weird assertions and even completely bogus statements, uttered with absolute confidence. Whenever their knowledge base is incomplete, they just fill the gap with fictional "facts". And they can't distinguish between different levels of source credibility. They're like Idiot Savants – superficially bright, inherently stupid.

What confuses so many people with regard to AIs is that they seem to pass the (purely behavioristic) Turing Test. But behaviorism is a fundamentally non-scientific viewpoint. At the core, computational AIs are nothing but algorithms that generates a large number of statistical heuristics from enormous data sets.

There is an old anecdote about a classification AI that was supposed to distinguish between friendly and enemy tanks. Although the AI performed well with respect to the database, it failed miserably in field tests. Finely, the developers figured out the source of the problem. Most of the friendly tanks' images in the database were taken during good weather and with fine lighting conditions. The enemy tanks were mostly photographed in cloudy, darker weather. The AI simply learned to identify the environmental condition.

Though this specific anecdote is probably an urban legend, it illustrates the fact that AIs don't really know what they're doing. Therefore, attributing intelligence to Arificial Intelligence algorithms is a misconception. Intelligence is not the application of a complicated recipe to data. Rather, it is a self-critical analysis that generates meaning from input. Moreover, because intelligence requires not only understanding of the data and its internal structure, but also inner-understanding of the thought processes that generate this understanding, as well as an inner-understanding of this inner-understanding (and so forth), it can never be implemented using a finite set of rules. There is something of the infinite in true intelligence and in any type of conscious thought.

But, if not computation, "what else can it be?". The substantial progress made in quantum theory and quantum computation revived the old hypothesis by Penrose that the working of the mind is tightly coupled to the quantum nature of the brain. What had been previously regarded as esoteric and outlandish suddenly became, in light of recent advancements, a relevant option.

During the last thirty years, quantum computation has been transformed from a rather abstract idea made by the physicist Richard Feynman into an operational technology. Several quantum algorithms were shown to have a fundamental advantage over any corresponding classical algorithm. Some tasks that are extremely hard to fulfil through standard computation (for example, factorization of integers to primes) are easy to achieve quantum mechanically. Note that this difference between hard and easy is qualitative rather than quantitative. It's independent of which hardware and how much resources we dedicate to such tasks.

Along with the advancements in quantum computation came a surging realization that quantum theory is still an incomplete description of nature, and that many quantum effects cannot be really resolved form a conventional materialistic viewpoint. This understanding was first formalized by John Stewart Bell in the 1960s and later on expanded by many other physicists. It is now clear that by accepting quantum mechanics, we have to abandon at least some deep-rooted philosophical perceptions. And it became even more conceivable that any comprehensive understanding of the physical world should incorporate a theory of the mind that experiences it. It's only stands to reason that, if the human mind is an essential component of a complete quantum theory, then the quantum is an essential component of the workings of the mind. If that's the case, then it's clear that a classical algorithm, sophisticated as it may be, can never achieve true intelligence. It lacks an essential physical ingredient that is vital for conscious, intelligent thinking. Trying to simulate such thinking computationally is like trying to build a Perpetuum Mobile or chemically transmute lead into gold. You might discover all sorts of useful things along the way, but you would never reach your intended goal. Computational AIs shall never gain true intelligence. In that respect, this technology is a dead end.

how many times you shift a day

remembering a memory different from others.

sleeping and dreaming

waking up

every decision you made and acts you made on them

remembering someone or somewhere different from you memory. missing people but only certain version of them, in certain time in past. or when you see a place from your childhood it looks completely different (smaller or less vibrant)

when you are about to find out the outcome/result

illusions. smelling/hearing/seeing something only you notice but other's can't. glitches in reality

everytime you pass through a liminal space (your room's or house's door, crossroads, stairs, elevator, waiting rooms etc.)

déjà vu moments

things you know you threw out or lost appears again

feeling more beautiful or different when you look at mirror. even if it's your hair or something else in your body. noticing small changes. also differences in your home, clothes even cell phone. food tasting different, music sounds different.

that's not even all. add yours.

you shift multiple times daily and you still think you can't control it? let me start a competition to notice and count your shifts in a day

...

While I was away, I made a discovery. I was watching Sammy Ingram, I was reading Neville's teachings, and I was doing sats and robotically affirming. Until I realised...It's all repetition. There is no manifestation where you don't repeat or persist. Even people who say "Just decide" PERSISTED and REPEATED their beliefs and rituals. Sure, they didn't affirm 20,000 times or robotically affirm until their head hurt. They just decided and repeatedly went back to that decision. Because that's how our mind works. That's how our brains learn. That's how we as beings gather information. We are told something, and then we are repeated that something until it becomes embedded into us. And that is why the law works. That is why the law is what it is.

this is your daily reminder that only the present exists so you don't need to worry about the future

Eighth workshop:

Foundations of quantum theory

Venue:  Institute of Philosophy, Research Center for the Humanities, Budapest, 1097 Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Floor 7, Seminar room (B.7.16)

Date:  September 22, 2022

Organizer: Philosophy of Physics Research Group, Institute of Philosophy

Contact:  Gábor Hofer-Szabó and Péter Vecsernyés

The language of the workshop is Hungarian.

The slides of the talks can be found here.

Program:

9.45: Welcome and introduction

10.00: Gábor Hofer-Szabó: Is the quantum state real?

In the talk, I will overview the different arguments for and against the reality of the wave function and revisit the psi-ontic/psi-epistemic debate and the PBR theorem.

11.00: Coffee

11.15: Márton Gömöri: Classicality and Bell’s Theorem

Many physicists are unimpressed by Bell’s theorem. A widespread view is that Bell’s reasoning rests upon assumptions—sometimes referred to as “classicality” or “classical realism”—that directly go against the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. According to such an understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to our causal picture of the world (locality, in particular), but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The talk will offer a critical discussion of this common view.

12.15: Lunch

13.30:  Szilárd Szalay: Quantum correlations

We survey the different kinds of bipartite correlation arising in discrete finite quantum systems: correlation, discord, entanglement, Schrödinger steering and Bell nonlocality. We discuss how these are related to each other, and illustrate them operationally, or at least mathematically.

14.30: Coffee

14.45:  Tamás Kiss: Determinism, chaos, quantum mechanics

The great promise of natural sciences is that they can predict future events. Among natural sciences, physics is the one which assumes the existence of the least possible number of elementary things such that it can make experimentally verifiable predictions. (In sharp contrast e.g. to mathematics, which tries to avoid elementary things and use only relations and, of course, it would not like to experimentally test its statements.) This more or less explicit program has achieved great successes since the Renaissance: the idea of determinism pervaded European thought and even globally, diligent STEM teachers strive to put all pupils on the ground of micro-determinism. The idea of determinism, however, sprung a leak from two directions in the past century. First, it turned out that even deterministic, mechanical equations possess solutions which allow for predictions, but a slight change of the initial condition leads to fast increasing deviations in the solution. In other words, the system is practically unpredictable. Then came quantum mechanics, with its inherently probabilistic nature. Here, determinism could only have been saved by paying very high penalties, e.g. giving up localism, which most physicists reject. In this talk, we present a deterministically chaotic quantum protocol, based on measurement and postselection. Each step of our iterative scheme has a chance of not being successful, but in case of success, the pure state of the system remains pure and evolves deterministically. We also consider effects of noise in such a system.

16.15: Get-together at Bálna terasz

self denial, self promotion - edward art

“the cause is self inside. all fear inside is self fear. all desire inside is self desire. all denial inside is self denial. it comes down to the self. we can use our imagination unwisely by fearing things, desiring things, and denying ourselves of things but in the end its just things. so we change not the things of the world, but the self. we do this by leaving the world of things alone and ignoring the facts of the world and accepting, fulfilling, and approving ourselves into a new state.” - edward art

My personal favorite manifestation stories & why

So i wanted to share my most favorite stories which are moonbakeries’ and blushydior’s. Their story is so simple and encouraging. Makes it easier to understand the law. They both were in hard circumstances and they both persisted in their new story and got their desires. But when i say it like they got their desires it makes it look like they did something to have it. But no, they understood how the law operates so that’s why everything reflected back.

I have been on loablr since 2023? idk i don’t remember those days exactly. Now i think of those times when i thought i persisted and got no results i was still resistant towards my new identity which you could call your “desired state” or “dream life”. The most helpful realization was that i still had love for my old state. Everything seems impossible or hard if you still see things from your old self’s perspective. That’s why i also studied Buddha’s teachings and non-dualism. They teach there’s only one self and one else. Which could sound haunting and kinda sad at first but as time goes on, the more you experience human life, you realize things mean something because only you thought so.

Let’s think about it. Can someone else think for you? no. Even if you think so, still you are the only one thinking, assuming, believing, manifesting.

A few days ago i felt like my life was so meaningless and i had no desire to live at all. Everything felt empty and cold. Then i just decided why not and i will think what i want.

Now let’s go back to my favorite manifestation stories. They persisted in their new story. Even physical reality didn’t look like their desires they didn’t give any meaning and immediately gave themselves their desires in imagination.

We are always in our imagination/4D. We can leave physical reality/3D (void state) but we don’t actually leave 4D and never will. Even if you imagine nothingness you are still imagining it.

It’s been 3-4 days since i decided to have some discipline and just persist. First 2 days i was fighting a lot with my thoughts which related to my old state. But i kept going on and kept persisted.

Now the only thing seems to be keeping me is my expectations of 3D changing. But if 3D is simply mirroring 4D then why would i want to fill my 4D with my current 3D again. Makes no sense.

I understand how everything is instant and 3D means nothing. Because when you think about void state, you are pure consciousness meaning there’s no 3D to give meanings to. So it means if we stop giving any meanings to 3D then what’s the difference between manifesting in void state or just simply changing your state/a+p.

I pretty much entered the sabbath state. I decided to let go of expecting 3D to change and continue whatever the life i’m living rn but give it no meaning and freely feel, live however i want in 4D. It might sound confusing or too much but when you actually want to practice the law, i think every single details matters a lot.

I wanted to share all this so you might understand what’s going on or something. And i will be the next one sharing the success story of waking up with my new reality. Which i already accepted as mine in 4D.

Right now how i see everything is, just asking myself would i care about this or think about it if i already woke up with my desires and physically with everything right now? No.

I don’t even think about how i should deal with my 3D. i think about what i will do for a second then immediately goes back to my desired state and think from it. As 3D goes by i don’t give any meanings related to that I don’t have my desires. Because i already living the life i want n having the things i want in my 4D then what’s left to doubt or question.

Anyway, sharing this so maybe someone might relate or something

okay it’s time to lock in girls!!! i learned about manifestation for 3 years and now i’m tired of myself not believing in i deserve what i want. finally got out of my depression phase and now i don’t think i wanna dwell back to my old states. I’ll post updates on my manifestations. Here’s a list of things i have it in my 4D

- A nice penthouse with perfect location and interior design i love

-The life style of rich spoiled girlie (Cher from Clueless <3)

-The face and body i deserve to have and experience

Goodluck, i have it all and i deserve it!