Neural/spatial syntax. Analoga of differentials. The code to operate this gets built before the component.

If language doesn't really mean anything, then automating it in geometry is worse than problematic.

The solution is starting over at 1947: measurement not counting.

The semantic meaning of your words here is non-existent. It is unclear to me how else you can communicate in a text based forum if not by using words. Since you can't despite your best effort I am left to conclude you are psychotic and should probably be banned and seek medical help.

▲

mallowdram 3 days ago | parent [-]

Engineers are so close-minded, you can't see the freight train bearing down on the industry. All to science's advantage replacing engineers. Interestingly, if you dissect that last entry, I've just made the case measurement (analog computation) is superior to counting (binary computation) and laid out the strategy how. All it takes is brains, or an LLM to decipher what it states.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3005627/

"First, cell assemblies are best understood in light of their output product, as detected by ‘reader-actuator’ mechanisms. Second, I suggest that the hierarchical organization of cell assemblies may be regarded as a neural syntax. Third, constituents of the neural syntax are linked together by dynamically changing constellations of synaptic weights (‘synapsembles’). Existing support for this tripartite framework is reviewed and strategies for experimental testing of its predictions are discussed."

▲

morpheos137 3 days ago | parent [-]

I 100% agree analog computing would be better at simulating intelligence than binary. Why don't you state that rather than burying it under a mountain of psychobabble?

	▲	mallowdram 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Listing the conditions, dichotomizing the frameworks counting/measurement is the farthest from psycho-babble. Anyone with knowledge of analog knows these terms. And enough to know analog doesn't simulate anything. And intelligence isn't what's being targeted.