Scholar

Well I already try to simplify it, I don't see where exactly people are having a hard time following what I am describing. To me it seems like people simply are not interested enough to genuinely read it and have sort of knee-jerk reactions to certain keywords I use. For example, I was asked a question, and clarified it, but then, there was no response to my clarification at all. Instead, a whole new argument was opened which is different from the intitial statements I was making. In the end, I will not be able to provide a mathematical proof, which if we get into the details is going to be required to logically justify what I am saying. Also, it is a little frustrating to argue with people who seemingly are not even understanding my point, and instead try to go into counter-argumentation before grasping what is even being said.

If you follow a set of rules, you will be restricted to whatever the outcome of that set of rules is. You would just, over and over again, get the same outcomes. The more degrees of freedom you have, the more potential for novel information there is. How could this not be the case? Patterns are necessarily stable, meaning the outcomes will also be stable. Animal cognition, and most of human cognition, does function this way. But there are some degrees of freedom, even in animal cognition, and more so in human cognition. My brain is getting foggy so I can't think as clearly any longer, I will have to illustrate the problem more clearly because I can see you guys don't understand the challenge you face in terms of creativity and creation, so you don't understand the relevance of the solution I have provided.

What is a pattern?

I want to clarify what I mean by that: He means true randomness does not exists as some sort of, actual physical process. My point is that, functional random noise can still exist. As long as it mathematically basically looks like noise, it will work, because what matters is what happens in the mathematical relationships of things, not in the physical processes or laws of nature. You could do this with dice rolling, which is not actually random, in a physical sense, but it would work all the same. It merely has be the equivalent of statistical noise, basically.

You are so stubborn. If you want to continue, give me your summary of what you think I am saying, and why I am saying the things I am saying. In the meantime, I will try to think of some sort of analogy or metaphor that will maybe illustrate the point I am making.

Because the way I described it is the only way you can pull something out of nothingness/infinity. I think you still don't quite understand the function randomness has in this. Randomness is the only way to actually completely explore or come into contact with infinity.

You can observe this in your own cognitive process. You generate genuine, novel ideas when not by actually somehow costructing them from the ground up, rather, you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea. That's tuning into the process I am describing, you tune into randomness, given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind, and somehow the idea is captured or crystalized once it "fits" your intention. This is what is happening. And the interesting thing will be, that we will be able to observe all of this in the brain. Because, infinity is accessed through the very principles of math itself. There is no magical source that somehow injects itself into the process. No, the mathematical process, or meta-process, is what the access to infinity looks like. We don't disagree about infinity, we disagree about the mechanism of manifestation, or creativity. It's a subtle, nuanced disagreement, but it makes all the difference. Which just means you don't understand what I am saying, but if you don't have clarifying questions I can't help you. I simplified my point there, by the way, so you could go back and read my posts where I explained it in depth.

I already described all of this, in fact I am described why it is necessary for Creation itself. I described to you the very nature of creation, creativity and evolution. Re-read my posts carefully, and maybe try to summarize what I said. You should definitely gather from my posts why exactly I think that randomness is necessary for Creativity. Kastrup is making a point about physicality. My point, really, would stand even if you could predict "noise", it wouldn't matter, as long as functionally the noise would lead to the exploration of all possibilities within an infinite system. But, actual randomness does exist. It is freedom, it is Free Will. Kastrup cannot fathom this possibility because he is a rationalist. In fact, the point is not even that you need to explore all possibilities within an infinite system, rather, the more you do explore, the more complexity you can pull out of it, while on the other hand it will take longer to actually pull those complexities out. (this is why evolution takes time) Leo disagrees with this because he is scared of physicalism, so anything that sounds like it he will reject. He has become very dualistic in that way. So, to simplify it, I say randomness exists because complexity exists. I claim without randomness, complexity could not possibly occur, because complexity is manifested through a random exploration of the infinite and an overarching selective process for function. I think that is what imagination, creativity, creation, is.

No, you are pretending you are not understanding what I am saying. Leo knows exactly what he means by random, he means exactly what I mean by random, that's why he disagrees with me. You are the one who is being dense here. Biologists also understand what randomness means. Kastrup also means what I mean by random, that's why he says it does not actually exist. He is wrong, lol! "the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization, unpredictability." You are simply not even contending with what I am writing. You are incapable of responding to the substance of what I am describing.

It is actually you who is using it in some idosyncratic way. I just mean the common understanding of randomness, nothing more. But you keep pretending I mean some divine intelligence which I do not. You think when I say randomness I actually mean anything but the common mathematical conception of randomness, or random noise. But I don't. When I say "Freedom = Randomness" I don't mean that what I mean by randomness is some spiritual notion of metaphysical freedom, I mean it the exact other way around. I mean that freedom literally is just randomness, that's what it is. Kastrup is completely wrong. Randomness, actual chaotic noise, is the prerequisite of creation itself. He also misses that nothing has to be "metaphysically" random or "actually" random, to actually be functionally random. Computer noise is functionally random, and using computer noise you can do all the same things I described. What matters is that all possibilities are explored. Think about it this way: The human physical body exists in infinity. Randomness + Selection for Function + Time = Human body You "tickle" into existence the human body out of abstract infinity, which serves certain functions, through randomness and selection and time. That's what evolution is, that's what machine learning is, that's what creativity itself is, both the creativity that allowed this universe emerge, as well as artistic human creativity, mathematical human creativity and so forth. It all works like this. It's not my fault you are projection your own notions onto me because you are trying too hard to confirm to yourself the presumptions you made at the beginning of this conversation.

It's unfathomable to me how you could not understand this after I reiterated the point I made in 4 different ways over multiple posts. Genetic mutation is the way through which abstract objects (complexity relationships between atoms) within infinity are pulled into existence through a given degree of freedom. Meaning, that within infinity already exist all possible complex relationship-structures between atoms, and through random noise and selection for function, you pull those complex relationship-structures out of abstract infinity/nothingness and manifest them into physical existence. That is what creativity is, that is what creation as a whole is. The reason why this is so metaphysically relevant is that, how could you possibly imagine something that you do not know? Contemplate this. How could you actually imagine something completely foreign to you, something completely novel? You cannot do so by remixing old data, as that would not be what we constitute as novel data here. You can do so by selection for a function and random noise. Random noise in this instance is just an exploration of infinity, and the selection for function then crystalizes certain pathways until the function is completed. If you can describe this in math, how exactly selection for function and freedom relates to each other, you could in principle find ways to construct any object of any function that is possible within this physical reality, given enough time.

Well then you fundamentally are not comprehending what I am writing. you coudl do the same with noise generated by a computer. You think there is some magical intelligence, you are completely missing the point. It's literally random noise, no intelligence whatsoever. Forget that whole intelligence thing. That is not at all required for what I am talking, other than for the construction of the whole system. I am not saying within randomness there is this mystical intelligence that allows everything to arise. No, I am actually saying it is mathematically random, and that is actually what freedom is. And that mathemetical randomness is how you interface with infinity. And that infinity is completely abstract and stable. It's not some deep intelligence magical force. It's like all the objects that can exist between 5 points if you connect them. All possible objects are infinity, and by literally picking random connections between these points, through rolling a dice, you would eventually get all possible objects that could exist between those 5 points. That's what I am describing, and you are just pretending I am saying the same thing as Leo. You don't understand what Leo is saying and you don't understand what I am saying. What I am saying you could describe with math, and if you manage to do so, you will be able to rule the world.

I think schools should be a source of discipline. Remember, children today don't have anything to allow them to integrate all the important aspects of stage blue. The only place where this can take place for most children is the school. If they don't learn these lessons there they could come out dysfunctional for the rest of their life's, lacking that type of integration. The best teachers I had were strict, demanding respect. You can still be loose and loving in that context, but I strongly feel there needs to be a certain stability in you. The children have to respect you. That will probably be a skill you will need to develop. You are far beyond stage blue most likely, so you don't need to worry about becoming overly strict. That happens when teachers are kind of stuck in that stage of development. You need to be able to use all these aspects fully conscious of what you are doing.

If we truly understand how selection for function and randomness relates to each other, our technological abilities will go beyond anything you can currently imagine. We could literally pull out of infinity any object we want. The beautiful thing is, all you need to have is the function. You won't even know what the object will be that will fit that function. you will not know or be able to predict how it will look, and most likely you will not even be able to understand how it works once it is manifested. But it will be there, because it is contained in infinity. It will self emerge if you are intelligent enough to create the conditions in which that object is selected for. We will have access to Creativity itself, to the process of Creation. We currently already do have that access, our minds exploit the same dynamics, but that will be a completely different level of Creativity. There will be scientists calculating how long it will take to manifest certain objects into existence given their complexity. Some objects will probably take decades, hundreds of years to manifest. There will be a rat race of who can first manifest these objects.

It's not an endpoint, it is a function. And you are missing the point. It's not that how we get there is random, it's that randomness/freedom is how everything with complexity in this universe is manifested from infinity into particularity. Or in otherwords, randomness/unbiasdness/freedom is the way physical reality interfaces with infinity and pulls out of infinite nothingness the objects that then will fit any given function. You can realize this is true, and that this is so obvious, it is almost laughable how you could have been so blind to this before the moment of realization. The human body in all it's complexity was literally pulled out of infinity through a dynamic of freedom and selection. This is how imagination works, this is how creation works, this is what Creativity is. The universe itself, like your brain, is connected to infinity through metaphysical freedom, which is what randomness is.

We are just talking about different types of randomness here. I hope you read my last few posts because they should make this clear, and I wonder if you disagree with that. What needs to be understood is that, given enough freedom, it will take infinite amount of time to let a certain structure emerge if the process remains completely free and unbiased. This is why selection by function is a thing, because this way it does not take infinite time, which in a physical universe is of course the only way complex life structures could emerge. Within infinity, which you interface through randomness/unbiasedness/freedom (we really need a better word for this), exist all possible objects, all possible biological creatures and so forth. At least when we talk about the infinity of this particular kind of physicality (spacetime with these particular laws of nature etc). If you were to pick atoms at random, so that you would randomly simply manifest them into space, given infinite amount of time, you could manifest ALL possible physical manifestations simply through complete random manifestation of atoms. Now, obviously this would take infinite time, so to your mind it seems useless. But you are missing the metaphysical point here. You can manifest literally all possible objects that could exist within this physical reality simply by randomly picking atoms. What this means is that, through randomness, through unbiasedness and freedom, you have access to infinity and all that exists within it. Now, you require time to pull out of infinity any given object, depending on it's complexity, but you can actually manifest it. Now, to reduce the time it takes to manifest any given object, we have to actually start becoming biased. The more we select for function, the more constrained the possibilities we pull from become, and the less time it takes to manifest objects. But, if we become too biased, certain complexities become impossible, because the selection process becomes too "close minded". This is actually what it means to be close minded, and it also applies to evolution and machine learning. This is the nature of creativity. So, the way the physical universe is constructed is such that there is a balance between selection and freedom. This balance is such that it takes billions of years for sapience to emerge from nothingness, to be pulled out of infinity through the evolutionary selection process. What you are talking about is simply structures that have emerged through that freedom. You have to make a difference here between the metaphysical nature of evolution and the biological nature of evolution. Certain biological dynamics that restrict randomness evolved because of the overarching metaphysical function that is being pursued. The biologists are completely clueless about any of this, until maybe some mathematician will come around and create the proof for what I am describing.

All randomness is, is complete lack of bias. And lack of bias is simply infinity. So, randomness, in evolution and machine learning, is just a lack of bias and therefore access to infinity, which will contain any structure imaginable. (imaginable simply means it exist within infinite nothingness) Now, we have to be careful because we can talk about certain types of unbiasedness. In terms of the physical universe, we would be talking about an unbiasdness related to motion in 3D space. For example, if you can randomply pick a number from 1-100, and you then create a system around this random picking that will preserve a certain function, you could, given enough time, pull out of this infinity (the infinite possibilities of relationships between 1-100) any of those possibilities or complex relationships that would serve the function you have determined. It will literally manifest out of nothing, meaning, out of infinity, through complete lack of bias, complete freedom, completey randomness. Really, evolution simply is this process. It is literally the coming into existence of infinite shapes through the design of the universe, which will biased towards a specific function which is God-Realization. But even if the whole system is biased, there is total unbiasedness within it. What machine learning creators are doing, which they are not yet realizing, is manifesting complex structures fitting a certain function from literally infinity using randomness/freedom. They pull these relationships, these complex structures, out of infinity. That's what is happening.

This is how evolution works: You have a system which will inevitably favour certain functions due to it's metaphysical limitation. Within that system, you have metaphysical holes that lead into true infinite, complete randomness and freedom. Through these holes in the system (which are not necessarily physical, though they could be), you then get complex structures emerging due to access to infinite possibilities and a bias towards certian functions. Over time, you will get infinite complex structures serving a certain function. So, the function comes first, and then using freedom/randomness/openness to infinity you will have the self-emergence of physical objects that fit that function. Because you are accessing infinity, you will have access to any object that could possibly exist, as infinity will contain that object. So, you basically pull out of infinity the specific structure that will serve the specific function which the system is biased towards. And you can only do this if there is actual randomness, actual freedom. The more free it is, the more infinite it is, the more access you to infinite forms, complexity and relationships. This is why ego makes you less creative, because it limits access to infinity in this sense, and it also limits the functions that will be allowed to self-emerge. This is what the brain does when it is being creative. This is what evolution does when it is being creative. This is what machine learning does to construct the incomprehensibly complex and interconnected structures that will be able to carry out any given function as if it was magic. I am almost certain you could create a mathematical proof for all of this. Because that's how genius the creator was. It is all so interconnect that you can understand and actually come into contact with it's undeniable reality through even something like math.

The point of randomness, or freedom, is that, given a certain system, you feed randomness into it so that ALL possibilities are explored. Because, that's what randomness does, eventually it will explore all possible pathways, because it is so free. Now, the metaphysical structure is upheld in such a way that it will naturally give rise and move towards self-realization, but in the context of free will, which is what randomness is. It's the openness to infinite possibilities. When you are open to infinite possibilities, and the structure will reward itself whenever a certain possibility is explored, you will see that, from this openness to infinity, you will actually self-construct the object from nothingness. All possible objects, self-constructed from nothingness based on a "goal". This is what machine learning exploits, on a metaphysical level, and it is the same tihng evolution exploits. You can find ALL possible solution if you are open to infinity, which is what randomness is. Randomness is complete unbiasedness. This is why life can construct itself into any function imaginable just by being open to infinite, to randomness. Through randomness, or freedom, or openness to infinity, you can manifest any object given a desired function without even knowing about any of the objects prior to it's manifestation. That is the genius of this system, and this is what actual creativity is. And I am not exaggerating that someone will get a nobel prize and be considered the equivalent of Darwin's theory of evolution by formalizing in a scientific way what I described above, this will be the most significant scientific discovery, possibly ever.

Leo is too close minded to recognize that randomness is actually part of the freedom of existence. Nothing about existence is random, but randomness wasn't randomly implemented. That's kind of what he is confusing in my view, because of his dualistic way of looking at all of this. The whole beauty of the system is that the metaphysical structures as laid out in such away that evolution will lead to self-realization while being steered by true randomness, true freedom. This leads to all the variety in life you can see, and an inevitable self-exploration of all possibilities. That's the function of true freedom, or true randomness, intentionless, unguided, causeless.

It is innate. True randomness is true and complete freedom. It is not merely our inability to predict it, prediction would mean restriction, and restriction would mean lack of freedom. But it could also just be similar to computer generated noise, which is not truly free in that sense. I predict with computer generated noise you would still have the self-emergence of these types of complex life-structures, and I think this will be proven sooner or later. The only problem with computation is that it is more restricted, it is a simulated physicality that is not exposed to the same metaphysical dynamics as direct physical reality is. While some metaphysical mathematical principles are preserved throughout, some of the relationships will be different in computer simulations than in physical reality. It's hard to predict what exactly will be possible with machine learning.

I never said the entire system is random, but the evolutionary mechanisms that lead to the evolutionary results use randomized noise. And of course humans have to tinker around with it all the time because they lack the intelligence to construct a system which will, simply through random noise, lead to the self-construction of infinitely complex life from inanimate matter. The entire system is obviously not random, or free. There are elements that are free, which given the mathematical structures lead to self-emergent evolutionary processes. The same is true in natural evolution. Obviously physical laws have constants and mathematics as a whole is abstract, therefore completely stable. No you are missing the point. Leo doesn't believe natural mutations are random. I am saying they actually can be random and evolution would still occur. I predict the universe is so intelligently designed, that it does not require constant intelligent intervention to lead to evolution. Leo believes mutation is steered by consciousness in the sense that it is not random noise, rather it is steered by some sort of divine will with a goal in mind. I believe it is steered by actual random noise that has no restricted will. These are two fundamentally different positions. In other words, Leo would say something like, the randomness is actually not arbitrary and random, and it is appearing in such a way that life occurs. The intelligence therefore is a fluid thing grounded in the "randomness". I say the randomness is arbitrary and actually random, and the intelligence is not fluid and grounded in the abstract nature of mathematical principles. Obviously this is simplified, but that's how you could view the difference between our positions.

The randomness is random, or in other words totally free. The intelligence is found in the structure the noise is fed into, and that will boil down to mathematical relationships. Intelligences isn't steering it in the way you would assume it does. You could take dumb, computer simulated randomness and you would still get the results, as the intelligence is preserved in the very nature of mathematical relationships themselves. I predict you will see this in machine learning, although machine learning is limited due to the physical nature of the substrate it exists on.

No u

It's not, because Leo would reject random mutation in evolution leading to all this. I believe it is likely that it does. He had made a point about this in the past talking about his views of evolution in this regard. In general though I disagree that it would be insane to assume that random mutation does lead to this. In my view that just stems from a lack of imagination in regards to how deeply embedded divine intelligence is within the very metaphysical and physical structure of this universe.