(January 31, 2018 at 8:08 pm)uncool Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 7:03 pm)Succubus Wrote: Thank you for emphasizing my point.

No, I showed your point to be irrelevant. Recall that my initial words were that the AGI (which is not yet here) will be more powerful than the human mind.

This is why your point was irrelevant, it doesn't alter the validity of the words underlined in the OP, or contribute anything novel to the topic at hand.

See above.

(January 31, 2018 at 9:14 am)polymath257 Wrote: There have been studies that show that doing *less* work is more the key to intelligence than doing more.

No wonder I'm such a fucking genius.

(January 31, 2018 at 8:08 pm)uncool Wrote: People may not want to "kudos" my response, and instead kudos your false responses, but we also know scientific evidence doesn't care about peoples feelings!

You seem sincere and know what you're talking about, but I won't kudos either you or polymath if I have no idea what you two are arguing about and who's right or wrong.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness causes higher entropy than unconscious states in the brain. It does seem intuitive to me, but that's just at first glance.

(January 31, 2018 at 9:33 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 8:08 pm)uncool Wrote: No, I showed your point to be irrelevant. Recall that my initial words were that the AGI (which is not yet here) will be more powerful than the human mind.

This is why your point was irrelevant, it doesn't alter the validity of the words underlined in the OP, or contribute anything novel to the topic at hand.

See above.

Yes, you clearly stated an irrelevant response earlier. 

Based on the instance that I underlined in the OP that AGI (that will reasonably be more powerful than the human brain) is not yet here, what do you suppose the value of your comment on page one was? 

Do you feel that your earlier comment on page one contributed something novel to my AGI/brain power remark in the OP?

---

(January 31, 2018 at 9:35 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 9:14 am)polymath257 Wrote: There have been studies that show that doing *less* work is more the key to intelligence than doing more.

No wonder I'm such a fucking genius.

That especially makes no sense, for example compared to chimps per body mass, humans have more neuronal interactions in the brain (aka more work is done), and those extra interactions have given rise to science and technology by human brains.

• Reference-A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...of_neurons
  
• Reference-B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio
  

---

(January 31, 2018 at 9:42 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 8:08 pm)uncool Wrote: People may not want to "kudos" my response, and instead kudos your false responses, but we also know scientific evidence doesn't care about peoples feelings!

You seem sincere and know what you're talking about, but I won't kudos either you or polymath if I have no idea what you two are arguing about and who's right or wrong.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness causes higher entropy than unconscious states in the brain. It does seem intuitive to me, but that's just at first glance.

Your intuition regarding entropy, consciousness and unconsciousness is reasonable. (Your intuition is also supported by evidence by the paper in question from the OP, and by other things related to the laws of thermodynamics).

• Here's a more recent paper (also peer reviewed) on the matter, by the same authors: Measures of entropy and complexity in altered states of consciousness
  
• Edit: The peer reviewed copy appears to be pay-walled. Here is a freely available version: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07061
  

Fuck off. Daft cunt.

(January 31, 2018 at 10:00 pm)Succubus Wrote: Fuck off. Daft cunt.

In the future, please try to add novel (relevant) contributions to discussions.

And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”


He chortled in his joy.

(January 31, 2018 at 8:08 pm)uncool Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 7:03 pm)Succubus Wrote: Thank you for emphasizing my point.

No, I showed your point to be irrelevant. Recall that my initial words were that the AGI (which is not yet here) will be more powerful than the human mind.

This is why your point was irrelevant, it doesn't alter the validity of the words underlined in the OP, or contribute anything novel to the topic at hand.

---

(January 31, 2018 at 6:09 pm)polymath257 Wrote: The 'problem space' needs no compression. 0<=p<=N. That's all. No approximations. No entropy needed. Nothing.

I don't know what your problem is with the OP, especially given the following:

• Your words about the channel-paradigm from the paper in reply 9: "The problem is that such a distribution has only one parameter (in this case the number of correlated channels) ...".
  

• Your words about the channel-paradigm from the paper in reply 13: "This is a one-parameter model".
  

• Finally, the paper deals with Stirling approximation, which concerns Shannon entropy measure.
  

• Furthermore we know this about Shannon Entropy measure based on Wikipedia/entropy...: "Shannon entropy is the logarithm of 1D, the index with parameter equal to 1.
  

• In other words, the paper and Shannon entropy measure are compatible; but you admit twice now that the paper is "one parameter model" while you clearly/reasonably forget that "Shannon entropy" may be as Wikipedia basically underlines, "one parameter aligned". (This is likely why you ironically claim the paper and Shannon entropy have no business being expressed together!)
  

People may not want to "kudos" my response, and instead kudos your false responses, but we also know scientific evidence doesn't care about peoples feelings!

No, I am saying there is a simpler description of what is going on that is more accurate and not as subject to the hype.

The simple description is that a waking brain has more active connections than one that is asleep or in a coma. That seems like a 'duh'.

If this is what passes for psychology research, well, it makes me sad for the subject.

(January 31, 2018 at 10:02 pm)uncool Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 10:00 pm)Succubus Wrote: Fuck off. Daft cunt.

In the future, please try to add novel (relevant) contributions to discussions.

Can the novel be betwixt conversations?

(January 31, 2018 at 10:32 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, I am saying there is a simpler description of what is going on that is more accurate and not as subject to the hype.

The simple description is that a waking brain has more active connections than one that is asleep or in a coma. That seems like a 'duh'.

If this is what passes for psychology research, well, it makes me sad for the subject.

• Why bother to say that a waking brain has more active connections? (Especially when I already mentioned that in the OP, i.e. recall my OP's words: "...the more awake the mind is...the higher the amount of neuronal interactions...")
  

• Why shouldn't the simplified model be associated with entropic description? Are you saying simple systems ought to be devoid of entropic description?