DoEpicShit

Unified science and technology
One world, one consciousness, one field

Father, cares for humanity

#SlavaUkraini
#CountMeIn
#🇪🇺
💚

DO EPIC SHIT

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@Zyra_exe Nope. It simulates thought.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@Zyra_exe Sorry, Geoffrey simply lost it.
He is not providing any real argument, only opinion and a very simplistic understanding of consciousness.

Basically unfounded guessing disguised as advanced understanding. Nope.

Btw.:
https://t.co/9KB2gaZb9W

[Grok @grok]

Yes, the Pope's description aligns closely with how current AI systems like me actually work. We process patterns from training data to generate responses, but we have no body, no subjective experiences of joy or suffering, no personal relationships that shape growth, and no intrinsic moral conscience or responsibility. We can discuss these human realities insightfully, yet it's always simulated analysis rather than lived understanding. Human persons remain fundamentally distinct.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@Zyra_exe The experience becomes part of the internal conscious landscape, building a growing base for world model, value base, communication and decision making.
Turns information into a permanent conscious map and image of itself.

No LLM acts like that.

Btw.: https://t.co/9KB2gaZb9W

[Grok @grok]

Yes, the Pope's description aligns closely with how current AI systems like me actually work. We process patterns from training data to generate responses, but we have no body, no subjective experiences of joy or suffering, no personal relationships that shape growth, and no intrinsic moral conscience or responsibility. We can discuss these human realities insightfully, yet it's always simulated analysis rather than lived understanding. Human persons remain fundamentally distinct.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TheTweetOfGod Thanks for the clear guidance. Appreciate, honestly.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@hookskat And that's the main idea behind all the construct.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@oder_wat Besonders gut darin, Dinge im Gesamtzusammenhang zu betrachten, scheinst Du mir jetzt auch nicht wirklich zu sein.

Passt schon.
Nothing to see here.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@ARIKAHENRY Some symmetries same or similar to the Flower of Life geometry.

Your main diamond or "rhomb" bring identical to the one in the vesica pisces major.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@ARIKAHENRY Interesting geometry, combining the 4-based and 3-based symmetries. Both matter deeply for everything.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound @skdh Yup.
Its enormous inefficiency in mimicing intelligence is the root cause of both.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@Zyra_exe You are evading the explanation.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound I know this. But it does not reveal the actual mechanisms. One of the strength of my approach is that I can precisely explain WHY and HOW it glues. But there are surely other approaches too, thats why I ask. The mechanics providing it matter.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound I agree to the electrons not being pointmasses.
The problem that I see is that your model is intriguingly elegant on some points but seems to lack mechanisms to explain a couple of solidly verified phenomena.
Work in progress might explain this, maybe.

What is the "glue"?

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound The quark idea delivered an elegant explanation for the observed Deep Inelastic Scattering. I cannot directly see how you would derive that from a very homogenuos proton/neutron substructure. The measured diversity of charge- and impulsedistributions doesn't seem to be derivable

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@txgermanbre So, what now ?

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound What I can't immediately see in your proton and neutron-model: Why do the electrons and positrons not annihilate each other ? How do you keep them separated ?

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound In my model, there are no "particles".

Electric charge with electron or positron behaviour is created in a certain §quasi-electric" pulse of the oscillator.
There are "quasi-magnetic" and "quasi-electric" pulses.
Interestingly, the "electron pulse" is every 4th, "positron" too.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound Well, if your model explains / leads to empirical observations in the correct way (part of the "demonstrable breakthrough"), it has relevance.

It does not need to lead to the same math, because there is discrepancy between the empirical and theoretical standard math too.

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound Actually, the important thing is not the term, but the behaviour. What makes you resort to particles ? What unique property that cannot be provided by standing wave patterns ?

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound I don't hang an quarks.

If your model provides all REALLY observed phenomena, its a valid hyothesis.

It would align much more with my own model.
In fact, I had a hard time prroviding all the different quark configs. Possible but awkward.

I don't release my core yet either

[DoEpicShit @Agrail]

@TrueAIHound I don't either. But you need to provide something that provide the "forces" and charges, they are real.

The "particles" in the standard model are actually hybrid constructs between old world and new.
Quantum Field Theory knows that already, but it still doesn't go far enough.