The problem is, I discussed it with jamal first, he approved. Then a moderator deleted my post, I had the discussion again. Then a second moderator changed another post and called me things I wouldn't call my dog.

From my first email to jamal I have been very clear in explaining why I am here, that it might be controversial and maybe not entirely in line with what this website is meant for. I agreed to every rule I was given, gave jamal the content of the website and my proposal for the first post. I did everything I could.

As for the content of my (now offline) website, see it as sketches I made for things I want to discuss here. Because that's what they are. I came here well prepared.

Just stop changing the rules and don't accuse me of things I didn't.

No, I did not read your SEP article yet. I will, a bit later.

But there was NO mention of my website in my post, I am telling that for the 100th time. The name bubblespeak is a name for the language that my AI will develop. That is all I wrote. (the name changed conform the new rules) [edit] a website must have .com or .org , I didn't add that.

Seeking "to get answers" leads merely to (dogmatic, sophistical) religion, Carlo, and is not, imo, philosophy. — 180 Proof

This viewpoint has changed over different time periods. Right now I have the feeling that philosophic viewpoints have dogmatic aspects. People on the forum said it is not allowed to talk about fundamental reality...

Incidentally, just don't put links to your work, don't talk about fund-raising, and talk sensibly about what you are interested in, and there will be no problems. — unenlightened

For the record, I did NOT put links to my website. I mentioned fundraising only to tell people that if they thought I was self-promoting, I was happy to adjust anything they didn't like.

For philosophers I would expect people to read better. Never mind, I am good. My website is offline. I will use the term bubblespeak whenever I want to address the internal language that my AI will develop.

And for your and other peoples information, if somebody wants to read more about the technical side of my plans, read above post.

Your idea (see, not so hard) — Outlander

He thanks for your interest. For me it is perfectly fine to talk about 'my idea'. It is not about pride, believe me, I passed that station 5 years ago.

I am an experienced programmer in many different fields. My current job is in robotics, food industry. I have experience with neural nets and with the math behind it, but it is the first time I work from a core developers perspective. Generally such a transition is not a problem for me.

"My idea" is about trying to make everything inside the AI independent of human concepts. Current chess programs use their neural net to rate board positions, but their minimax tree search is still written by humans. As you said correctly, LLM's use all kinds of human written preprocessing. My belief is that this is the limiting factor for true intelligence. I could be right, I could be wrong, I don't care. It is the direction I decided to go.

The solution I have in mind, and one that I am currently writing at "tic tac toe" level, is that halfway the neural net I will have an abstraction layer with a smaller number of nodes. Then there is a decision algorithm that is fully governed by other neural nets that decides whether the information continues the normal route or goes to another module.

Other modules can store the data, or modify it, or keep it circulating. All governed by neural nets. This is where I can experiment whatever I like.

Is this a crazy idea? Yes it is. Will it work? In my experience, I have invented many crazy things and all of them worked. Not all of them were successful in the marketplace. Three software patents on my name are underway, if that counts.

But all this is not what I want to discuss here, on a philosophy forum. The whole thing has many other aspects I do want to understand better. One of them is: will this AI contribute to human self-destruction, or will it help avoid it? To understand this better, I think it important to see the information flow between modules as a language, as an analogy to human thinking. Only here it is that my term "bubblespeak" comes in. (name altered in harmony with the new guidelines. I also deactivated the website after my own proposal).

Maybe you do not see the need for this philosophical discussion. It is not totally clear for me either. I need time to find that out. That is part of the journey I am here for.

In the meantime it seems a lot of people are enjoying the discussions, and several do agree with me on a deep level. It is only the moderators that keep changing the rules. I did not include links to my website. I mentioned the name of the language, but without url. I suggested a few times to google the name, maybe I shouldn't have done that. On the other hand I was allowed to point them to my personal page that had a link to my website - to me that is the same thing. I went through many discussions with several people who were not cool.

I am good. I feel happy here, I like talking about my idea after several years of just thinking about it. I want to obey any rule that they put in place to keep this place healthy for everybody.

Is it ok if I refer to "Bubblespeak" in the future? I don't mind.
I can unpublish my website, I don't mind.

But people are asking for more information about my project. Even in this thread, unenlightened was asking more. How should I handle that? Earlier I said, look at my profile, you'll find a link. Mentioning that was allowed, according to jamal. I said a few times Google "Babelspeak", maybe that I shouldn't do?

I am reasonable. But please give me a workable solution.

That is why I contacted the admin before I sent my first post. And I made agreements with him about what was allowed. Now it seems that I cannot mention "Babelspeak". That is impossible, it is the core of what I want to talk about.

And Baden literally said that

The solution is we delete your posts and ban you.
What happened in the the other thread was that some posters who know about Kant tried to inform you about your misunderstandings concerning his philosophy. Your response there and here is to pretend that they were wrong to do so. — Baden

So it was - and still is - not clear what I did wrong and how I should change my behavior.

You are wrong. Babelspeak is what I call the internal language this AI is going to develop. So it is the core of my idea.

I'd rather unpublish my website.

I wrote my ideas here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15491/i-am-building-an-ai-with-super-human-intelligence.

I believe we fully understand each other... I like your example of the flying chariot.

There is also the reversed possibility that two people fully agree conceptually. If experiments can confirm these theory, even when the theory is wrong, it forms empirical evidence of the consistency of fundamental reality... I think...

What was blunt? And I still don't understand what I am allowed to say or not. What I wrote is that, in trying to be transparant, there might be a time that anything I write on this topic could be interpreted as self-promotion, because there might come a time that I do need promotion. And I asked anyone if they feel it this way, to let me know so I could adapt. Why is that self-promotion?

That is nonsense. If I can't use the term Babelspeak, that is what this idea is all about. Look, I am just a developer alone in my room. I don't sell Babelspeak T-shirts. I just wanted te be completely transparant. If that is not how you like it you could just say so. But your text is unacceptable by any standard of respectful discussion:

"

Plus, honestly, you've shown no evidence that I'm aware of that you know anything interesting about anything at all, including AI. If you provide that evidence and don't engage in any self-promotion whatsoever from now on, you can stay. Otherwise, you may not be contributing to the site and may not be allowed to stay. — Baden

"

And where did I do that?

I was not even aware of front page topics.

No, your conclusion is incorrect. The plan is, it will be an autonomously operating AI that could take over the world if it had bad intentions. That is my whole point of being here, to get a grip on that aspect.

The problem is, while many of you are engaging in a positive way, I get banned if I tell too much about my project, because it would be self-promotion. So be patient.

I am working on a real super-human intelligence. It is really about a new kind of software architecture. The key is that it develops its own internal language, I call it Babelspeak. That language has a high bandwidth and data rate. I expect it will be able to have a broader understanding than humans. See my earlier post.

I am sorry, but I find this comment unacceptable. Why should I show evidence of knowing something interesting? Nobody here has to prove anything. People talk about their dog, why can't I talk about my AI project? If it is not interesting what I write, people would ignore the post, but reactions keep coming.

Just a second ago I got a comment from RussellA on my posts. This comment is respectful and does resonate with what I am saying. Also the people I disagree with got a respectful reply from me. On the other hand, not all feedback I got was respectful.

Just because I have a different opinion, that is no reason to ban me. And I do not self-promote, that is what I am explaining. I want to discuss a certain topic, and for that reason I have to explain a bit more context. That this may lead to some exposure, I am aware of and I do everything to avoid that.

Also, look at this email conversation I had with Jamal earlier this week. I replace his real name with [Jamal] for privacy reasons.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 15:25 Carlo Roosen wrote:
Hi [Jamal],
This is a draft of the first post I plan to write on the forum. Please also look at the note at the end.

It’s good. It should produce a lively discussion.
[Jamal]

The "note at the end" later got objections, so I removed it. It contained a reference to my website.

An agglomeration of all these concepts is self contradictory — fdrake

Every contradiction finds its source in limitations of language. Reality does not contradict itself. So when some things contradict, search for a viewpoint where they don't. Just like your contradiction about future versus fundamental reality, it was caused by a different understanding of the term "future",

There are two ways in which we could fail to understand something like fundamental reality, the first of which is the unknown which we could come to know, the second of which is the unknown which we could not come to know. The first unknown is like the future, like what will happen tomorrow. — fdrake

The future is not one moment defined in time, but it moves with time progressing. So the future is as unknowable as fundamental reality. And just like the future is revealed bit by bit, without ever being known, so is fundamental reality.

This analogy breaks at some point ;)

shape is also a name, but a generic one.

I might repeat myself, but the discussion went all directions yesterday. So I repeat it just to capture the line of thought here.

Of course we don't capture fundamental reality with the term "fundamental reality". That is never the case, it is the luxery of language. When I talk about a duck here, without quotes, still there is no duck. Thus we can have a word "unknowable" or "afterlife" and use it like: Some people believe that in the afterlife we will know the unknowable. No logical problems here.

Also, I haven't heard anybody comment on this statement of mine, that with a concept in our mind we can do all kinds of tests to confirm that concept in fundamental reality. I called it a one way system. It is what science does all day. So the concepts still *apply* to fundamental reality. Don't say this is a contradiction, I say nothing more than what you can perceive directly. You expect your keys where you left them, or your wife took them. You rely on fundamental reality every moment.

I am curious, am I now crossing a border that Indirect Realists don't like?

Again, I just gave these two things different names. "a real, material, external world" is my fundamental reality, the "ideas" is my conceptual reality.

I believe my terms work better because they take away the unease of things not being real.

But still those indirect realists give it a name, according to the encyclopaedia:

a real, material, external world

external object

I just gave it another name, "fundamental reality" instead of "a real, material, external world". T Clark doesn't seem to like this. I don't understand, both are descriptions of the same.

Please read my latest longer post, it is one page back ) I am curious if you see something illegal or contradictionary here.

That is kind, but why do you think that? I am very happy with this conversation.

I modified the text, it was not fair

Who started saying that we cannot talk about things? I see no problem.

Ok, maybe that was a weak move. Let me try to write it down in a few words.

Conceptual reality is in our minds. It is fragmented, it has a notion of time. It has ideas of things it can expect. It has language. And also, it is sequential, basically we are only aware of a few things simultanously. We can notice that there are strange things in this conceptual reality, for instance that they are organized in levels, from atoms to cookies to letters, but nothing inbetween. We have things like emergent complexity, for instance ants that walk around seemingly randomly yet form living bridges across two branches and we cannot explain how it works. And the brain. We invent or discover things that we didn't know before. So we can clearly see that there are things beyond our knowledge. Also, the world is larger than our skull, so it is obvious that the reality we perceive can never be the full reality, we have to compress it.

For that reason we invent a term, I call it fundamental reality. It is about the things we don't understand. It is perfectly fine to have a term for the collection of things we have no name for, that happens all the time. Just like "future". We can say a few things in general about fundamental reality, in the same way we can have predictions about the future. Still, both the future and fundamental reality are fundamentally unknowable. (that is the only thing these two terms have in common, it is not a full analogy)

One of the things we can say about fundamental reality is that if you know what you are looking for, you can find conformation that it is there. And those conformations regularly do align. So there must be *something* out there, we cannot say everything is just an imagination.

I don't see a contradiction here. If there is one, probably you are misinterpreting a few of my words or introducing concepts that are not mine. Also, I believe what I say is obvious and simple, you can easily verify what I am saying.

I'll follow "I like sushi" 's advice and leave it at this.

Here's a link to an article you might be interested in - "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology" by Konrad Lorenz. — T Clark

I fully agree with what is written there so I don't see the issue you have.

Why not? Be careful for doctrines. If anybody said that, they must refer to something they have understood by own experience or insight. Do not go where others go but search for what they are searching.

Also "unknowable" is still a word. And "you cannot say anything about fundamental reality" is a contradiction in itself.

Here you are conceptualizing "fundamental reality," but you're not allowed to do that. You can't even really think about it, — T Clark

I don't think that is true. Fundamental reality is a concept to point to the fact that the real nature of things cannot be understood conceptually. We have words for all kind of things that we do not know, I mentioned them earlier "surprize", "future", "unknown" or "black swan", (the latter referring not to a rare animal but a special concept for an unlikely event). So it is perfectly fine to talk about fundamental reality.

And yes, I have the Tao Te Ching, and here applies the same, more or less. We cannot speak about it and yet we do.

Haha, you are ahead of what is coming. Image (c) Carlo Roosen

I agree, and tnx for the solid advice!

That is only because terms are confused. Kant sort of denies the conceptual reality. According to him the real thing we cannot understand, leaving us with a feeling of being lost. I propose different terms, but they mean the same. With these terms you can say a duck is real, but only in conceptual reality. The duck only exists in fundamental reality in the sense that it gives the confirmation when you know where to look.

why not both? If I understand these words correctly, they both agree with what I try to say. Plus it is a lot shorter. To me it seems there we must stop thinking, becuase words/concepts start to work against themselves. It is more about stopping to think in time...

yes that is what I mean to say too.

And yet, there is something there. Because when we know there is a duck there, we can do all kinds of experiments and involve other people to prove that, really, there is a duck. That is what I think 'the thing in itself' means. Even while the letter E cannot really be there in fundamental reality, we still can prove it is there. That is not a paradox, it is a simple fact.

I absolutely do not mean the word "duck" against the real duck. The problem is, the mind always and automatically applies one layer of abstraction. In the above sentence, what you actually read is ""duck"" against the real "duck" (both words get an extra pair of quotation marks). Because, there was never a real duck on your screen.

What I am referring to, and that is what I believe Kant is referring to as well, is that when we look at a duck and call it a "duck", we have never captured its reality. As the example with the cookies show, the letter E is only a way for the mind to point to a pattern it recognises. The same with the duck, although it is more difficult to capture the moment that the mind makes the translation. It is really something you have to try out, not something you can invent while writing. A field experiment, so to speak.

I will, but later. Or google "Babelspeak". There is not much there, but I'll update it.

Not a problem but I can't follow you. While I believe I do understand what Kant is saying, when I read it I say "yes, yes" every sentence. To me it feels you lost contact with reality and wandered off in concept land. Sorry maybe a bit harsh ..

(That is not true, I read abstracts ;))