1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: How does HH see the recursive simulation of DD ? OLCOTT LIES

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 3 23:29:01 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 3/3/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
    To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
    attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
    the exact same ideas over and over without success.

    I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
    that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.

    I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
    ideas until I hit one that works.

    The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
    First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
    all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
    problem and start from complete scratch.

    First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
    reverse-engineer
    complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes >>>>>>> called
    “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down >>>>>>> complicated
    problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
    ground
    up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/

    The Science of Genius
    Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
    shared attributes and a common process of discovery
    BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/ >>>>>>>
    According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
    Campbell,
    creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed >>>>>>> blind
    variation and selective retention (BVSR).

    In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
    hitting on
    a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as >>>>>>> a blind
    variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
    underpinnings of the process he described.

    As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
    mixture of
    historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations, >>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 >>>>>>> years
    to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius >>>>>>> in all
    domains.

    The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without >>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in >>>>>>> trial-
    and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth >>>>>>> of an
    idea.

    Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and >>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
    variety of
    ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.

    Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
    earlier
    approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
    Superfluity and
    backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode. >>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been >>>>>>> originally cast aside.


    But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
    problems actually are.

    Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
    implementation of the design of HH.

    Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
    suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
    objections. The key design validation is that the outer
    HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
    machine.



    And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
    it is doing.


    The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
    inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
    *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*


    Nope.

    The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH

    *Yes it does here is how*
    HH digs into the internal state of its simulated machine as Mike
    said that HH could do.

    The outer HH simulates DD that calls another instance of HH that
    is also simulated by this outer HH.



    Note, you LIE by improperly editing the quotation, INTENTIONALLY the way
    it was done.

    I said:

    The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
    inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
    *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*

    So, you edited out the qualification of what I was saying.

    Thus, you are just showing how deceitful you are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)