Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Welcome to my blog!

Posted:Mar 19, 2018 1:42 pm
Last Updated:Mar 21, 2018 9:58 am
Posted:Mar 16, 2018 5:05 pm
Last Updated:Mar 18, 2018 10:37 am
I came across these crocheted figures by Russian artist Yulia Ustinova.......It was hard to choose which ones to post, she is very clever and prolific.....

Aurora Borealis for Stephen Hawking
Posted:Mar 14, 2018 7:56 pm
Last Updated:Mar 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Posted:Mar 6, 2018 6:51 pm
Last Updated:Mar 11, 2018 11:23 am
Posted:Mar 5, 2018 5:17 pm
Last Updated:Mar 6, 2018 8:25 pm

WASHINGTON—In the wake of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that left 17 dead and 14 injured, sources confirmed Wednesday that the idea of doing absolutely nothing until the next mass shooting is gaining considerable traction in Congress. “After the recent tragedies, lawmakers have shown a great deal of interest in a proposal that’s been circulating to sit back and do jack shit until the next entirely preventable massacre goes down on U.S. soil,” sources said of the legislators’ plan to twiddle their thumbs while the next unhinged lunatic effortlessly purchases an AR-15 before firing it indiscriminately in what could be either a crowded mall, a movie theater, an airport, or even another school. “As soon as the Parkland shooting happened, party leaders banded together, declared ‘Enough is enough,’ and immediately began formulating a way to talk out of their asses via their social media accounts while doing nothing to create, strengthen, or better enforce basic gun laws. This measure to squander their unique opportunity to pass legislation that puts an end to the maddening cycle of gun violence is very popular right now, and will likely continue to be championed until the next group of innocent men, women, and children are brutally slaughtered.” Sources added that the plan has a high chance of surviving, as it has the full support of the NRA.

from The Onion
Posted:Mar 4, 2018 3:42 pm
Last Updated:Mar 5, 2018 5:20 pm
I'm sure everyone has seen these images already, but it's a small number of Loony Moonies.......But still, there are already thousands of them gathering and spreading their message......This is the nightmare version of the American Evangelical Trump voting, Gun Toting crazies.......WTF!!!!

Posted:Feb 18, 2018 5:35 pm
Last Updated:Mar 7, 2018 8:52 am
horizontal sunlight.
Posted:Feb 13, 2018 8:18 pm
Last Updated:Feb 16, 2018 7:10 am

The Case Against Reality
A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, ures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent . If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive ience at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic : The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.

Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroience and fundamental physics. On side you’ll find researchers ratching their chins raw trying to understand how a -pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So while neuroientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. And that’s where you can find Hoffman—straddling the boundaries, attempting a mathematical model of the observer, trying to get at the reality behind the illusion. Quanta Magazine caught up with him to find out more.

Gefter: People often use Darwinian evolution as an argument that our perceptions accurately reflect reality. They say, “Obviously we must be latching onto reality in some way because otherwise we would have been wiped out a long time ago. If I think I’m seeing a palm tree but it’s really a tiger, I’m in trouble.”

Hoffman: Right. The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions—mathematical functions that deribe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees n of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.

Gefter: You’ve d computer simulations to show this. Can you give an example?

Hoffman: Suppose in reality there’s a resource, like water, and you can quantify how much of it there is in an objective order—very little water, medium amount of water, a lot of water. Now suppose your fitness function is linear, so a little water gives you a little fitness, medium water gives you medium fitness, and lots of water gives you lots of fitness—in that case, the organism that sees the truth about the water in the world can win, but only because the fitness function happens to align with the true structure in reality. Generiy, in the real world, that will never be the case. Something much more natural is a bell curve—say, too little water you die of thirst, but too much water you drown, and only somewhere in between is good for survival. Now the fitness function doesn’t match the structure in the real world. And that’s enough to send truth to extinction. For example, an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won’t see any distinction between small and large—it only sees red—even though such a distinction exists in reality.

Gefter: But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial to an organism’s survival?

Hoffman: There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 , and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position, and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet n of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true deription of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.

Gefter: So everything we see is big illusion?

Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.

Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?

Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a deription created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal s. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.

Gefter: How did you first become interested in these ideas?

Hoffman: As a teenager, I was very interested in the question “Are we machines?” My reading of the ience suggested that we are. But my dad was a minister, and at church they were saying we’re not. So I decided I needed to figure it out for myself. It’s sort of an important personal question—if I’m a machine, I would like to find that out! And if I’m not, I’d like to know, what is that special magic beyond the machine? So eventually in the 1980s I went to the artificial-intelligence lab at MIT and worked on machine perception. The field of vision research was enjoying a newfound success in developing mathematical models for specific visual abilities. I noticed that they seemed to share a common mathematical structure, so I thought it might be possible to write down a formal structure for observation that encompassed all of them, perhaps all possible modes of observation. I was inspired in part by Alan Turing. When he invented the Turing machine, he was trying to come up with a notion of computation, and instead of putting bells and whistles on it, he said, Let’s get the simplest, most pared down mathematical deription that could possibly work. And that simple formalism is the foundation for the ience of computation. So I wondered, could I provide a similarly simple formal foundation for the ience of observation?

Gefter: A mathematical model of coniousness.

Hoffman: That’s right. My intuition was, there are conious experiences. I have pains, tastes, smells, all my sensory experiences, moods, emotions and so forth. So I’m just going to say: part of this coniousness structure is a set of all possible experiences. When I’m having an experience, based on that experience I may want to change what I’m doing. So I need to have a collection of possible actions I can take and a decision strategy that, given my experiences, allows me to change how I’m acting. That’s the basic idea of the whole thing. I have a space X of experiences, a space G of actions, and an algorithm D that lets me choose a new action given my experiences. Then I posited a W for a world, which is also a probability space. Somehow the world affects my perceptions, so there’s a perception map P from the world to my experiences, and when I act, I change the world, so there’s a map A from the space of actions to the world. That’s the entire structure. elements. The claim is: This is the structure of coniousness. I put that out there so people have something to shoot at.

Gefter: But if there’s a W, are you saying there is an external world?

Hoffman: Here’s the striking thing about that. I can pull the W out of the model and stick a conious agent in its place and get a circuit of conious agents. In fact, you can have whole nerks of arbitrary complexity. And that’s the world.

Gefter: The world is just other conscious agents?

Hoffman: I it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view. Interestingly, I can take conscious agents and have them interact, and the mathematical structure of that interaction also satisfies the definition of a conscious agent. This mathematics is telling me something. I can take minds, and they can generate a new, unified single mind. Here’s a concrete example. We have hemispheres in our brain. But when you do a split-brain operation, a complete transection of the corpus colosum, you get clear evidence of separate consiousnesses. Before that slicing happened, it seemed there was a single unified consiousness. So it’s not implausible that there is a single conscious agent. And yet it’s also the case that there are conscious agents there, and you can see that when they’re split. I didn’t expect that, the mathematics forced me to recognize this. It suggests that I can take separate observers, put them together and create new observers, and keep doing this ad infinitum. It’s conscious agents all the way down.

Gefter: If it’s conscious agents all the way down, all first-person points of view, what happens to conscience? Conscience has always been a third-person description of the world.

Hoffman: The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what’s going on? Here’s how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you’ve had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it’s relevantly similar to mine. That’s an assumption that could be false, but that’s the source of my communication, and that’s the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective ience.

Gefter: It doesn’t seem like many people in neuroience or philosophy of mind are thinking about fundamental physics. Do you think that’s been a stumbling block for those trying to understand coniousness?

Hoffman: I think it has been. Not only are they ignoring the progress in fundamental physics, they are often explicit about it. They’ll say openly that quantum physics is not relevant to the aspects of brain function that are causally involved in coniousness. They are certain that it’s got to be classical properties of neural activity, which exist independent of any observers—spiking rates, connection strengths at synapses, perhaps dynamical properties as well. These are all very classical notions under Newtonian physics, where time is absolute and objects exist absolutely. And then [neuroientists] are mystified as to why they don’t make progress. They don’t avail themselves of the incredible insights and breakthroughs that physics has made. Those insights are out there for us to use, and yet my field says, “We’ll stick with Newton, thank you. We’ll stay 300 behind in our physics.”

Gefter: I suspect they’re reacting to things like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s model, where you still have a physical brain, it’s still sitting in space, but supposedly it’s performing some quantum feat. In contrast, you’re saying, “Look, quantum mechanics is telling us that we have to question the very notions of ‘physical things’ sitting in ‘space.’”

Hoffman: I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to deribe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects—including brains—don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard to let go of.

Gefter: To return to the question you started with as a teenager, are we machines?

Hoffman: The formal theory of conious agents I’ve been developing is computationally universal—in that sense, it’s a machine theory. And it’s because the theory is computationally universal that I can get all of cognitive ience and neural nerks back out of it. Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines—in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conious realist, I am postulating conious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life—my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality.
Posted:Feb 11, 2018 2:07 pm
Last Updated:Feb 16, 2018 6:55 pm
This is the first stage of my new painting. It's a 30 by30 inch stretched canvas,
so there were several technical difficulties I had to overcome before I could get to this stage., the main one being that my hands are not as steady as they once were. Another one was finding the right pen....after pencilling the lines, I have to redo them with pen or else the graphite will colour my paint. After going over all the lines with a technical pen, I used warm soapy water and a rag to clean the graphite off......but the ink wasn't waterproof as I I tried to use an eraser, which is very tedious on a piece this size and will always leave smudges.....but the eraser smeared the ink......So it was off to the Art-Supply store for technical pens that are guaranteed to have permanent ink.........I re-drew all these lines this morning and cleaned it with an eraser.....I might use soap and water after it sets a bit longer......As long as the ink doesn't smudge into the paint I'll be OK with it......Stay tuned for stage 2.....colour......cheerful, light colours to welcome the Sun back, I think..

Posted:Jan 30, 2018 12:43 pm
Last Updated:Feb 12, 2018 7:46 pm

To link to this blog (sparkleflit) use [blog sparkleflit] in your messages.