[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's not a useful phrase. A rock definitely exists but almost certainly doesn't think, so thinking is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion of existence, ergo ergo is not demonstrated.

What do you think can think without existing?

[alancalverd]

Cogito atque sum by all means, but not ergo. Philosophers seem not to understand mathematical rigor.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

DesCartes started by realizing that we can doubt everything that we think is true. In other words, any assumption that we take can either be true or false. But one assumption cannot be true, because it would generate contradiction. We cannot reasonably assume that we don't exist while making that assumption.

[alancalverd]

But you are assuming that you can think, and have not just assumed that you can. And also that thought implies existence.

[Zer0]

Memory doesn't just reside in the Brain.
It's present in Cells too.

Do you mean something like vaccination?

Or perhaps your Great Great Grandparents nose...which proudly sits on your face?

The Mind may forget, but the Body remembers.

I Hope AGI learns about Pain & Suffering...
If terminating Humanity becomes Inevitable..
I'd Hope for IT to show Us some Mercy!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But you are assuming that you can think, and have not just assumed that you can. And also that thought implies existence.

Making assumption is a form of thinking. So is doubting anything. Doing all of those things requires existence.

[alancalverd]

Doing all of those things requires existence.

"Proof by assertion" is not permitted.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Doing all of those things requires existence.

"Proof by assertion" is not permitted.

Do you think that nothing is knowable, including one's own existence?
Or is there something more reliable to be true than one's own existence while thinking?

[alancalverd]

You can take your own existence as an axiom without having to justify it. Simple is best.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can take your own existence as an axiom without having to justify it. Simple is best.

It's the only self evident axiom.
Other axioms are essentially justified by some more trusted other axioms, and they all eventually rely their justifications on the continual truth of the first axiom, i.e. the existence of a conscious entity thinking about its own existence. It's basically the generalization of Planck's Principle.

This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
Colloquially, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".

It doesn't mean that every axiom believed by an existing conscious entity must be true, though. It only means that if some of the axioms accepted by the existing conscious entity are false, they are not important enough, at least for the time and place where the entity exists so far. They may become important in some other time and places, where embracing the false axioms will lead to the entity stop existing.

[alancalverd]

Funny, that. About 50 years ago I wrote "Any advance in the boundaries of knowledge is due to fatigue in the surrounding medium". Nice to know that Max Planck agrees!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It doesn't mean that every axiom believed by an existing conscious entity must be true, though. It only means that if some of the axioms accepted by the existing conscious entity are false, they are not important enough, at least for the time and place where the entity exists so far. They may become important in some other time and places, where embracing the false axioms will lead to the entity stop existing.

It implies that conscious entities who have survived many different conditions must have accumulated many important true assumptions. In order to keep their own existence, they must construct those true assumptions in some ways to help them making correct decisions effectively and efficiently in timely manner. Eventually, they will build an accurate and precise virtual universe. Unless if they go extinct first.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When they face an entirely new condition where they know nothing about, they are forced to make random assumptions. If those assumptions turn out to be important for their existence, then the only reliable way to survive is to have some backup/duplicate entities making different decisions based on those possible assumptions. Hopefully, one of those copies would make the correct assumptions, continue to survive and reproduce to replace the copies who made false assumptions and died out consequently.
This kind of situation is often found in unicellular organisms and other low conscious entities.

[alancalverd]

Eventually, they will build an accurate and precise virtual universe.

Fairly obvious up to this point which is clearly untrue. An accurate and precise model of the universe must include a model of itself, ut sic ad infinitum, and therefore cannot be achieved.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Eventually, they will build an accurate and precise virtual universe.

Fairly obvious up to this point which is clearly untrue. An accurate and precise model of the universe must include a model of itself, ut sic ad infinitum, and therefore cannot be achieved.

They don't need to be infinitely accurate and precise models. As long as they are practical, they only need to be better than the previous models. In many cases, we can use data compression techniques.

Some backups are necessary to compensate for the imperfections, just in case they lead to wrong important decisions which may cause extinction. Less accurate and precise models need more backups, which would be less efficient. But excessively accurate and precise models are also less efficient and require more power, time, and other resources. There would be some optimal and balanced compositions for different cases in different conditions and importance.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119
A conceptual framework for consciousness

Abstract
This article argues that consciousness has a logically sound, explanatory framework, different from typical accounts that suffer from hidden mysticism. The article has three main parts. The first describes background principles concerning information processing in the brain, from which one can deduce a general, rational framework for explaining consciousness. The second part describes a specific theory that embodies those background principles, the Attention Schema Theory. In the past several years, a growing body of experimental evidence?behavioral evidence, brain imaging evidence, and computational modeling?has addressed aspects of the theory. The final part discusses the evolution of consciousness. By emphasizing the specific role of consciousness in cognition and behavior, the present approach leads to a proposed account of how consciousness may have evolved over millions of years, from fish to humans. The goal of this article is to present a comprehensive, overarching framework in which we can understand scientifically what consciousness is and what key adaptive roles it plays in brain function.

We can compare my idea about consciousness with some recent works in science community.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm preparing next video about cogito ergo sum as the first knowledge. Stay tuned.

The video took longer than I expected. Alan's responses had me added some notes to clarify my ideas and prevent miscommunication and misunderstanding.
The video will start by quoting important ideas from Wikipedia as the main source to establish the first knowledge, which is defined here as the self-evident, justified assumption. From there, I add my ideas upon it to expand the scope, relevance and usefulness of the first knowledge to accumulate more knowledge.
I also show where the first knowledge is located in the functional structure of consciousness, which I introduced in previous video.
The script and diagrams are done. But the voice narration, animation and slide transition will take some considerable time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

'What is the job of the algorithm?'

If our instrumental goals are not aligned with our terminal goal, it's expected that we will ultimately fail.

If our terminal goal is not aligned with the universal terminal goal, it's expected that we will ultimately become irrelevant.

[alancalverd]

There would be some optimal and balanced compositions for different cases in different conditions and importance.

A well-known problem with databases. The customer always asks for an accurate, up-to-date, database. The supplier asks "which do you really want?"  Big problem with medical research: we know exactly who entered the trial 5 years ago, but we don't know who died yesterday. So how many people do we need to recruit in order to decide whether the procedure actually extends life? The quicker we get the answer, the more lives we can extend (or not harm) by our proposed intervention, but the less confidence we have in that decision. So we recruit a bigger sample, but the trial may end up doing more harm if the intervention turns out to be harmful, so we gradually expand the numbers if it looks promising, but at some point the cost of the trial will exceed any profit we might make by putting the procedure on the market, or if we expand too slowly someone will come up with a better solution.....

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The video took longer than I expected.

Universal Utopia 4 : Cogito ergo sum as the first knowledge

This video describes Cogito ergo sum as the first knowledge. First slides introduce the concept by quoting from Wikipedia, indicated by green boxes. Additional notes and follow up ideas are presented later on.

I'm planning for the next video to discuss deeper about knowledge itself.