date:20230315

It turns out that GPT4 was finished in August but it wasn't released to the
public until yesterday because Microsoft was worried about safety; I
wouldn't be surprised if they'd already completed GPT5 but are afraid to
release it.

GPT 4: 9 Revelations (not covered elsewhere)


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7y7

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TVTN5XzP0r9Sb3Xpy82sZY852_53DNUQ4f0_MCGXTeA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:31 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Just as Neuro-guys explan human consciousness*

Nonsense, the Neuro-guys are able to do no such thing and I am quite
certain the electronics guys won't be able to explain consciousness either,
other than by proposing the axiom that it's a brute fact that consciousness
is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. And it is
now much more obvious than it was even 2 months ago that the electronics
guys* CAN* explain intelligence.

* > If we don't know what, we will soon.*
>

Nope

*> UNLESS you hold that consciousness is a Mystery? *
>

The trouble is even if you find out that X causes consciousness the next
obvious question is what causes X. There are only 2 possibilities, an
iterative chain of "what" or "how" or "why" questions either goes on
forever, like a Matryoshka doll or an onion with an infinite number of
layers, or it ends with a brute fact, an event without a cause.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

n6z

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv35meu2rVXSv7GBDp8yOdWEnSPAQ5QEZRa7pR0C10e%2BBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

JC is theologically correct.
Why? Because any resurrection will be quantum.
The information about all things remains in the universe. How do I surmise this?
Physicist, Guilio Prisco & Science Writer, George Musser saw this. Musser's 
2019 article is called Gravit's Residue.Musser-Back in the 1960s, Hermann 
Bondi, A. W. Kenneth Metzner, M. G. J. van der Burg and Rainer Sachs made the 
truly remarkable discovery that space–time far away from any matter has an 
infinite collection of symmetries known as supertranslations…”
A supertranslation, Strominger says (as reported by Musser), adds soft 
particles to spacetime.

“This realisation, in turn, provides a clearer picture of how a seemingly empty 
spacetime that is far from any gravitating bodies can retain a residue of 
gravity’s effects. Plop a soft particle into a vacuum and, though it adds no 
energy, it does contribute its angular momentum and other properties, thereby 
bumping the vacuum to a new version of itself. Strominger realised that if the 
vacuum can assume multiple forms, it will retain an almost homeopathic imprint 
of what passes through it.”

A project like no other, I agree! But our Machine/Human descendants will have 
lots of time to gather up the data. 
Bolonkin, the inventor, also holds with the quantum rez. 

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/07/bolonkin-explores-ultimate-uploading-and-technology.html

Me: So if you're a Christian and you have met favor in The Lords' Eyes, you 
come back electronical.If Samy pleases Allah, bang! Up to Janah he goes!
Is this the only way this could happen? It's the most currently, scientific, 
but this cannot be the last word in astronomy, physics, and computer science.

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: te...@telmomenezes.net 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2023 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:01 AM John Clark  wrote:

> It might affect you. 

I don't think so, but because it involves consciousness I'll never be able to 
prove it, i'll never be able to prove anything about consciousness. But I'm 
confident that if something acts just like me then it will be me.  

> Do you plan to freeze your brain?

Yes, I've already paid the $80,000 bill to do so. 

 > Do you have a clause to only resuscitate to biological substrates?

No, and it would not make any difference even if I did because it would not be 
followed. I'm not at all sure cryonics will work at all because I'm not sure my 
brain really will remain at liquid nitrogen temperatures until the singularity, 
and even if it is I'm not at all sure anybody will think I'm worth reviving, 
but I think my chances are infinitely better than if my brain is burned up in a 
furnace or eaten by worms. If I am lucky enough to be brought back I'm certain 
it will be as an upload, nobody will want somebody as stupid as me (relative to 
the average citizen living at that time) wasting resources in the physical 
world.   
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
9cv
yft
pii 

You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine" (by 
"modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of months) 
and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell you, or ask it 
what will likely happen next to the object in the photo and it will give you a 
good answer. It can read and understand graphs and charts and if you show it a 
drawing from a high school geometry textbook full of intersecting lines circles 
squares and triangles and ask it to find the area of the second largest 
triangle in the upper left quadrant it will be able to do so. And if you ask 
what's humorous about the photograph it will be able to explain the joke to 
you. And it works the other way too, if you ask it to paint a picture of 
something, even something that doesn't exist, it will be able to provide an 
original painting of it that's far better than anything I could dream of 
painting.  How on earth can something that is just a "Language Machine" do amy 
of that?

> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium 
> arsenide seems a tall order.

It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3 pounds of 
gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming that carbon 
hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic are not? And 
besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not conscious then that's 
their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or the other if computers 
are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing about your alleged 
consciousness.  I'm far FAR more interested in if computers are intelligent or 
not because that most certainly does affect me. 

> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal 
> brains arise from a Server Farm? 

Because both animal brains and server farms process information

Re: The connectome and uploading

Lets not accuse me of setting the bar, too high, Stathis. Just as Neuro-guys 
explan human consciousness, there is no reason why thet cannot come up with a 
cause and effect sketch of how Cha4 began to be conscious. 
If we don't know what, we will soon. UNLESS you hold that consciousness is a 
Mystery? 
You may be correct, but until research gets done, lets hold our cards.


-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2023 8:47 am
Subject: Re: The connectome and uploading



On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:47, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal 
brains arise from a Server Farm? 
At this point, I claim it doesn't and that 3 and 4 are clever Language Machines.
To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium 
arsenide seems a tall order. I have seen no article by any computer scientist, 
neurobiologist, or physicist, indicating HOW computer consciousness arose? If 
there is something out there, somebody please present a link to this august 
mailing-list.

There is no process or structure that would satisfy as the secret of 
consciousness. Suppose we discovered a new neurotransmitter in the brain with 
exotic physical properties: how would that explain consciousness? Why would 
silicon or gallium arsenide be so fundamentally different to this 
neurotransmitter that it obviously couldn’t explain lain consciousness?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypVW-wTgeR_yZd7%3DcgruCMc5wDhqE8Cu_4MsXewf5eWUAA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1473476759.355531.1678908658068%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

All I am saying is what are the dynamics of creating a human level mind in a 
server farm???
You do know that we have switched identities with this argument with you being 
the cybernetic believer and me being the religious atheist? I am good if 
somebody arrives at an explanation? The Mechanics Plese.
I bet I can get a neuroscientist to explain how meat and bone become self 
aware. We need the same for Le Machine!
Stumbled upon this Tweet that applies perhaps to yourself?
A woman in the Philippines spent four years praying to a green "Buddha" figure 
she purchased from a store, until one day a friend pointed out the Buddha 
figure she'd been praying to was actually Shrek. The damned thing is, it 
actually works!

George Carlin: I believe in God, but I pray to the Sun. "“I've begun 
worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other 
gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the 
things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, and a 
lovely day.

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: te...@telmomenezes.net 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2023 11:01 am
Subject: Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:47 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

 > 3 and 4 are clever Language Machines.

You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine" (by 
"modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of months) 
and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell you, or ask it 
what will likely happen next to the object in the photo and it will give you a 
good answer. It can read and understand graphs and charts and if you show it a 
drawing from a high school geometry textbook full of intersecting lines circles 
squares and triangles and ask it to find the area of the second largest 
triangle in the upper left quadrant it will be able to do so. And if you ask 
what's humorous about the photograph it will be able to explain the joke to 
you. And it works the other way too, if you ask it to paint a picture of 
something, even something that doesn't exist, it will be able to provide an 
original painting of it that's far better than anything I could dream of 
painting.  How on earth can something that is just a "Language Machine" do amy 
of that?

> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium 
> arsenide seems a tall order.

It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3 pounds of 
gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming that carbon 
hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic are not? And 
besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not conscious then that's 
their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or the other if computers 
are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing about your alleged 
consciousness.  I'm far FAR more interested in if computers are intelligent or 
not because that most certainly does affect me. 

> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal 
> brains arise from a Server Farm? 

Because both animal brains and server farms process information intelligently. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
pii

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2esT1gmprF-twkFyvdXESoi1asEk6L6mi5Dxmm9_7sGw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/967610060.357080.1678908421439%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

Master Resch, you could told us ahead of time that you were a Pantheist!!! 
Having said that, it's ok, my favorite philosopher also is. John Leslie, author 
and inventor of Hostage Chess.
John A. Leslie - Wikipedia
I loved his stuff and have no issue with pantheism and minds. Also, I blindly 
go for afterlife theories whoever has a brain and peddles these unto me. Could 
be Kurzweil, Tipler, Prisco, Moravec, Tipler, Tim Anderson @ Georgia Tech, you 
name em! Yes your ideas as well. 
I simply advise people to come up with something scientific concerning, 
consciousness, as need more intellectual substance. It's a cautionary not and 
this is not the hill I choose to die upon. Just wanting to know how a human 
eqivalent happened, sans, carbon + water :-)


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2023 8:46 am
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky


On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 8:45 AM Jason Resch  wrote:



On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 7:59 AM  wrote:

I am a not a neurobiologist, old son. I could try to see if there are any 
papers out on grey goo becoming self-aware and self-reflecting?  My Definition! 

Anything with a "self" is conscious.Anything with "awareness" is conscious.
Therefore your definition of "self awareness", by restricting consciousness to 
things that are only aware of oneself but not other things in the environment, 
you may only be capturing some, but not all classes of consciousness entities.
Likewise by defining consciousness as "self reflection", you may overly 
restrict consciousness only to those selves which happen to reflect upon that 
self, and perhaps wrongly deny consciousness to selves who do not self reflect.
It is possible that reflection (at least reflection on some level) is necessary 
to consciousness. But I have not seen a strong argument for it yet. I do think 
the capacities for self-awareness and self-reflection exist in humans, but do 
we do it all the time?
Are we self reflecting and self aware of ourself in every moment of our 
consciousness? What about raw sensory experiences when we live in the moment, 
such as when catching a wave or riding a rollercoaster?
Are fruit flies self-reflecting and self-aware? Are they consciousness of the 
presence of a banana on the counter? These questions keep me up at night.




If you have a paper on how consciousness arises from intel, Nvida, and AMD 
chips please supply the link. It's chips and salsa to me. 

I think focusing on hardware is a red herring. Consciousness is a high level 
phenomenon and I believe it exists in high level abstractions of information 
processing and computation. Seeking the magic of consciousness in the 
neurochemicals or silicon chips is in my view, as misguided as seeking to find 
it in the quarks and electrons.
 



If you claim something just spoke from a D-Wave superchilled box and it asked 
how you were doing, I'd consider that a true possibility. Photonics? Ok lets 
roll with it. 


Trace the physical causes behind someone uttering the words "I am conscious" 
back through the signals in the nerves of their vocal cords into the deepest 
recesses of their brain. There you will find consciousness as the processes 
that stand behind the person thinking and reasoning and concluding, and then 
deciding to utter the words "I am conscious".
I think you can do the same for any silicon or quantum computer, in principle. 
Consciousness, presumably, is what causes us to talk about consciousness. It's 
therefore something that exists in the causal chain of physics, and something 
amenable to investigation.
Jason





-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: jasonre...@gmail.com 
Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:55 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> I still need to know how it became conscious when just using chips and data

I'll tell you just as soon as you tell me how 3 pounds of gray goo inside of a 
vat made of bone that is sitting on your shoulders manages to be conscious.  
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
vmb

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04H7Ry%3DctkkhfRUj_w5gid5u6txq-XYfsmbG8DkUXJ2Q%40mail.gmail.com.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgOh3J%2BWkRowuy3BTR48_C9RGVrhxLsVtg-k7UxzKsXnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 1:47 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:01 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
> *> It might affect you. *
>
>
> I don't think so, but because it involves consciousness I'll never be able
> to prove it, i'll never be able to prove anything about consciousness. But
> I'm confident that if something acts just like me then it will be me.
>
> *> Do you plan to freeze your brain?*
>
>
> Yes, I've already paid the $80,000 bill to do so.
>
>  > *Do you have a clause to only resuscitate to biological substrates?*
>
>
> No, and it would not make any difference even if I did because it would
> not be followed. I'm not at all sure cryonics will work at all because I'm
> not sure my brain really will remain at liquid nitrogen temperatures
> until the singularity, and even if it is I'm not at all sure anybody will
> think I'm worth reviving, but I think my chances are infinitely better than
> if my brain is burned up in a furnace or eaten by worms. If I am lucky
> enough to be brought back I'm certain it will be as an upload, nobody will
> want somebody as stupid as me (relative to the average citizen living at
> that time) wasting resources in the physical world.
>

In that case the question of machine consciousness is not entirely
irrelevant to you.

Jason




> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> 9cv
>
> yft
>
> pii
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine"
>> (by "modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of
>> months) and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell
>> you, or ask it what will likely happen next to the object in the photo
>> and it will give you a good answer. It can read and understand graphs and
>> charts and if you show it a drawing from a high school geometry textbook
>> full of intersecting lines circles squares and triangles and ask it to find
>> the area of the second largest triangle in the upper left quadrant it will
>> be able to do so. And if you ask what's humorous about the photograph it
>> will be able to explain the joke to you. And it works the other way too, if
>> you ask it to paint a picture of something, even something that doesn't
>> exist, it will be able to provide an original painting of it that's far
>> better than anything I could dream of painting.  How on earth can something
>> that is just a "Language Machine" do amy of that?
>>
>> *> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or
>>> gallium arsenide seems a tall order.*
>>
>>
>> It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3
>> pounds of gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming
>> that carbon hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic
>> are not? And besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not
>> conscious then that's their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or
>> the other if computers are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing
>> about your alleged consciousness.  I'm far FAR more interested in if
>> computers are intelligent or not because that most certainly does affect
>> me.
>>
>>
>> *> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to
>>> animal brains arise from a Server Farm? *
>>>
>>
>> Because both animal brains and server farms process information
>> intelligently.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0kVLqjWXqAOsLjAkXjhATQ%2BBdJMtR-bo%2BRe1apSpnJ1g%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiiunHyEfcr7Lzn3%2BshbvaHbynvZbjQyKsP5hmdnNS2ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:01 AM John Clark  wrote:

*> It might affect you. *


I don't think so, but because it involves consciousness I'll never be able
to prove it, i'll never be able to prove anything about consciousness. But
I'm confident that if something acts just like me then it will be me.

*> Do you plan to freeze your brain?*


Yes, I've already paid the $80,000 bill to do so.

 > *Do you have a clause to only resuscitate to biological substrates?*


No, and it would not make any difference even if I did because it would not
be followed. I'm not at all sure cryonics will work at all because I'm not
sure my brain really will remain at liquid nitrogen temperatures until the
singularity, and even if it is I'm not at all sure anybody will think I'm
worth reviving, but I think my chances are infinitely better than if my
brain is burned up in a furnace or eaten by worms. If I am lucky enough to
be brought back I'm certain it will be as an upload, nobody will want
somebody as stupid as me (relative to the average citizen living at that
time) wasting resources in the physical world.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

9cv

yft

pii











> You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine"
> (by "modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of
> months) and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell
> you, or ask it what will likely happen next to the object in the photo
> and it will give you a good answer. It can read and understand graphs and
> charts and if you show it a drawing from a high school geometry textbook
> full of intersecting lines circles squares and triangles and ask it to find
> the area of the second largest triangle in the upper left quadrant it will
> be able to do so. And if you ask what's humorous about the photograph it
> will be able to explain the joke to you. And it works the other way too, if
> you ask it to paint a picture of something, even something that doesn't
> exist, it will be able to provide an original painting of it that's far
> better than anything I could dream of painting.  How on earth can something
> that is just a "Language Machine" do amy of that?
>
> *> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or
>> gallium arsenide seems a tall order.*
>
>
> It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3
> pounds of gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming
> that carbon hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic
> are not? And besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not
> conscious then that's their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or
> the other if computers are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing
> about your alleged consciousness.  I'm far FAR more interested in if
> computers are intelligent or not because that most certainly does affect
> me.
>
>
> *> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to
>> animal brains arise from a Server Farm? *
>>
>
> Because both animal brains and server farms process information
> intelligently.
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0kVLqjWXqAOsLjAkXjhATQ%2BBdJMtR-bo%2BRe1apSpnJ1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 11:02 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:47 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> * > 3 and 4 are clever Language Machines.*
>
>
> You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine"
> (by "modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of
> months) and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell
> you, or ask it what will likely happen next to the object in the photo
> and it will give you a good answer. It can read and understand graphs and
> charts and if you show it a drawing from a high school geometry textbook
> full of intersecting lines circles squares and triangles and ask it to find
> the area of the second largest triangle in the upper left quadrant it will
> be able to do so. And if you ask what's humorous about the photograph it
> will be able to explain the joke to you. And it works the other way too, if
> you ask it to paint a picture of something, even something that doesn't
> exist, it will be able to provide an original painting of it that's far
> better than anything I could dream of painting.  How on earth can something
> that is just a "Language Machine" do amy of that?
>
> *> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or
>> gallium arsenide seems a tall order.*
>
>
> It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3
> pounds of gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming
> that carbon hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic
> are not? And besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not
> conscious then that's their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or
> the other if computers are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing
> about your alleged consciousness.  I'm far FAR more interested in if
> computers are intelligent or not because that most certainly does affect
> me.
>


It might affect you. Do you plan to freeze your brain? Do you have a clause
to only resuscitate to biological substrates?

Jason


>
> *> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to
>> animal brains arise from a Server Farm? *
>>
>
> Because both animal brains and server farms process information
> intelligently.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> pii
>
>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2esT1gmprF-twkFyvdXESoi1asEk6L6mi5Dxmm9_7sGw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgYHVAioJ0kA3fr2gVq8iqzjs8vsPyQgaucPr8GuTkdig%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:47 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > 3 and 4 are clever Language Machines.*

You can input nothing but a photograph into a modern "Language Machine" (by
"modern" I mean something that has been developed in the last couple of
months) and ask it what is in the photograph and it will be able to tell
you, or ask it what will likely happen next to the object in the photo and
it will give you a good answer. It can read and understand graphs and
charts and if you show it a drawing from a high school geometry textbook
full of intersecting lines circles squares and triangles and ask it to find
the area of the second largest triangle in the upper left quadrant it will
be able to do so. And if you ask what's humorous about the photograph it
will be able to explain the joke to you. And it works the other way too, if
you ask it to paint a picture of something, even something that doesn't
exist, it will be able to provide an original painting of it that's far
better than anything I could dream of painting. How on earth can something
that is just a "Language Machine" do amy of that?

*> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or
> gallium arsenide seems a tall order.*

It's no more magical than the claim that consciousness arises from 3 pounds
of gray goo made of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Are you claiming that
carbon hydrogen and oxygen are sacred but silicon gallium and arsenic are
not? And besides, to hell with consciousness! If computers are not
conscious then that's their problem not mine; it won't affect me one way or
the other if computers are conscious or not, and I could say the same thing
about your alleged consciousness. I'm far FAR more interested in if
computers are intelligent or not because that most certainly does affect
me.

*> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to
> animal brains arise from a Server Farm? *
>

Because both animal brains and server farms process information
intelligently.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis

pii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2esT1gmprF-twkFyvdXESoi1asEk6L6mi5Dxmm9_7sGw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:51 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Connectome studies hold that "The Map is The Landscape."*
>

And if the map is so detailed that you can't tell the difference then it's
100% true that "The Map *IS *The Landscape".

*> When people like Ray Kurzweil were pontificating 25 years ago, it seemed
> back then like computer science would be roaring to The Singularity. Today,
> much of the goodies forecast by Kurz and everyone else seems sluggish,*
>

Since 1990 Ray Kurzweil has made147 precise predictions about the date by
which certain advances in information technology will be achieved, at the
time most technology gurus said his predictions were ridiculous, but 86% of
them turned out to be correct and only 14% were wrong. I can't think of any
other prognosticator on any subject that has a better track record than
that. But in one prediction he was too conservative, decades ago Kurzweil
said a computer would pass the Turing Test by 2029, but it passed it in
2023; he also predicted that the Singularity will happen by 2045, but the
events of the last few months have led me to believe that he may be too
conservative on that prediction also.

> Uploading seems as far away to me, as ever.
>

As far away as ever?!  I think the time when the sun turns into a red giant
and incinerates the Earth is closer this year than it was last year
but if after
the passing of years you think the time when uploading is possible has not
become closer that can only mean it will never happen because you think
uploading is physically impossible.  Why is that? Do you think chemistry is
sacred but electronics is not?
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

u7v

>
>  I see nothing sacred in hormones, I don't see the slightest reason why
> they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate
> through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of
> sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of
> Evolution's bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are
> better ways of sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a
> message in a bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse
> to its random target.
>
>
> I don't think the point is about the specific neurotransmitters (NTs) used
> in biological brains, but that there are multiple NTs which each activate
> separable circuits in the brain. It's probably adaptive to have multiple
> NTs, to further modularize the brain's functionality. This may be an
> important part of generalized intelligence.
>
>
> I'm not interested in brain chemicals, only in the information they
> contain, if somebody wants  information to get transmitted from one place
> to another as fast and reliablely as possible, nobody would send smoke
> signals if they had a fiber optic cable. The information content in each
> molecular message must be tiny, just a few bits because only about 60
> neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, norepinephrine and GABA are known,
> even if the true number is 100 times greater (or a million times for that
> matter) the information content of each signal must be tiny. Also, for the
> long range stuff, exactly which neuron receives the signal can not be
> specified because it relies on a random process, diffusion. The fact that
> it's slow as molasses in February does not add to its charm.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0qdK1tJeyBAsjnWwgibBGrxoEMgvMe3ehp1Zm_AgGFJA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 7:47 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal
> brains arise from a Server Farm?
>

There was this recent paper that showed self-arising similarity between
language models and neural anatomical structures in in the language centers
of human brains:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35173264/ “Brains and algorithms partially
converge in natural language processing”

> At this point, I claim it doesn't and that 3 and 4 are clever Language
> Machines.
>
> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium
> arsenide seems a tall order. I have seen no article by any computer
> scientist, neurobiologist, or physicist, indicating HOW computer
> consciousness arose? If there is something out there, somebody please
> present a link to this august mailing-list.
>

It's not via magic, but through the thinking that our bodies are machines.
Then asking: would another machine, with similar behavior and functions as
us, not have an equal claim to consciousness as we have?

Indeed, if philosophical zombies are impossible, then Turing universality
guarantees that an appropriately programmed computer would be
consciousness, and could be conscious in the exactly same way as humans
are. See Chalmers's "Dancing, Fading Qualia" paper for a good argument of
this. It's freely accessible on his website.

Below I show how this thinking has developed over the past few thousand
years:

“But the facts are that the power of perception is never
found apart from the power of self-nutrition, while-in plants-the
latter is found isolated from the former. Again, no sense is found
apart from that of touch, while touch is found by itself; many animals
have neither sight, hearing, nor smell. Again, among living things
that possess sense some have the power of locomotion, some not. Lastly,
certain living beings-a small minority-possess calculation and thought,
for (among mortal beings) those which possess calculation have all
the other powers above mentioned, while the converse does not hold-indeed
some live by imagination alone, while others have not even imagination.
The mind that knows with immediate intuition presents a different
problem.”
-- Aristotle "On the Soul" 350 B.C.

"I should like you to consider that these functions (including passion,
memory, and imagination) follow from the mere arrangement of the machine’s
organs every bit as naturally as the movements of a clock or other
automaton follow from the arrangement of its counter-weights and wheels."
-- René Descartes, Treatise on Man, published in 1633

Man a Machine - Julien Offray de La Mettrie 1748
http://bactra.org/LaMettrie/Machine/
“Man is so complicated a machine that it is impossible to get a clear idea
of the machine beforehand, and hence impossible to define it.”

Alan Turing in BBC Radio Interview: “Can Digital Computers Think?” May 1951.
-
“In order to arrange for our computer to imitate a given machine it is only
necessary to programme the computer to calculate what the machine in
question would do under given circumstances, and in particular what answers
it would print out. The computer can then be made to print out the same
answers.
[...]
If now, some particular machine can be described as a brain we have only to
programme our digital computer to imitate it and it will also be a brain.
If it is accepted that real brains, as found in animals, and in particular
in men, are a sort of machine it will follow that our digital computer
suitably programmed will behave like a brain.”

“The important result of Turing’s is that in this way the first [universal]
machine can be caused to imitate the behavior of any other machine.”
-- John von Neumann in “The Computer and the Brain” (1958)

Minds and Machines - Hilary Putnam (1960)
"The functional organization (problem solving, thinking) of the human being
or machine can be described in terms of the sequences of mental or logical
states respectively (and the accompanying verbalizations), without
reference to the nature of the “physical realization” of these states."

Pribram (1976),

“I tend to view animals, especially furry animals, as conscious-not plants,

not inanimate crystals, not computers. This might be termed the "cuddliness

criterion" for consciousness. My reasons are practical: it makes little
difference at present whether computers are conscious or not. (p. 298)”

Freud's Project reassessed

Book by Karl H. Pribram

http://karlpribram.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/theory/T-078.pdf

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/ascribing.pdf  “ASCRIBING MENTAL
QUALITIES TO

MACHINES” (1979)

“Machines as simple as thermostats can be said to have beliefs, and having

beliefs seems to be a characteristic of most machines capable of problem
solving performance. However, the machines mankind has so far found it
useful

to construct rarely have beliefs about beliefs,

Re: The connectome and uploading

2023-03-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:47, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal
> brains arise from a Server Farm?
>
> At this point, I claim it doesn't and that 3 and 4 are clever Language
> Machines.
>
> To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium
> arsenide seems a tall order. I have seen no article by any computer
> scientist, neurobiologist, or physicist, indicating HOW computer
> consciousness arose? If there is something out there, somebody please
> present a link to this august mailing-list.
>

There is no process or structure that would satisfy as the secret of
consciousness. Suppose we discovered a new neurotransmitter in the brain
with exotic physical properties: how would that explain consciousness? Why
would silicon or gallium arsenide be so fundamentally different to this
neurotransmitter that it obviously couldn’t explain lain consciousness?

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypVW-wTgeR_yZd7%3DcgruCMc5wDhqE8Cu_4MsXewf5eWUAA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 8:45 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 7:59 AM  wrote:
>
>> I am a not a neurobiologist, old son. I could try to see if there are any
>> papers out on grey goo becoming self-aware and self-reflecting?  My
>> Definition!
>>
>
> Anything with a "self" is conscious.
> Anything with "awareness" is conscious.
>
> Therefore your definition of "self awareness", by restricting
> consciousness to things that are only aware of oneself but not other things
> in the environment, you may only be capturing some, but not all classes of
> consciousness entities.
>
> Likewise by defining consciousness as "self reflection", you may overly
> restrict consciousness only to those selves which happen to reflect upon
> that self, and perhaps wrongly deny consciousness to selves who do not self
> reflect.
>
> It is possible that reflection (at least reflection on some level) is
> necessary to consciousness. But I have not seen a strong argument for it
> yet. I do think the capacities for self-awareness and self-reflection exist
> in humans, but do we do it all the time?
>
> Are we self reflecting and self aware of ourself in every moment of our
> consciousness? What about raw sensory experiences when we live in the
> moment, such as when catching a wave or riding a rollercoaster?
>
> Are fruit flies self-reflecting and self-aware? Are they consciousness of
> the presence of a banana on the counter? These questions keep me up at
> night.
>
>
>
>
>> If you have a paper on how consciousness arises from intel, Nvida, and
>> AMD chips please supply the link. It's chips and salsa to me.
>>
>
> I think focusing on hardware is a red herring. Consciousness is a high
> level phenomenon and I believe it exists in high level abstractions of
> information processing and computation. Seeking the magic of consciousness
> in the neurochemicals or silicon chips is in my view, as misguided as
> seeking to find it in the quarks and electrons.
>
>
>
>
>
>> If you claim something just spoke from a D-Wave superchilled box and it
>> asked how you were doing, I'd consider that a true possibility. Photonics?
>> Ok lets roll with it.
>>
>
> Trace the physical causes behind someone uttering the words "I am
> conscious" back through the signals in the nerves of their vocal cords into
> the deepest recesses of their brain. There you will find consciousness as
> the processes that stand behind the person thinking and reasoning and
> concluding, and then deciding to utter the words "I am conscious".
>
> I think you can do the same for any silicon or quantum computer, in
> principle. Consciousness, presumably, is what causes us to talk about
> consciousness. It's therefore something that exists in the causal chain of
> physics, and something amenable to investigation.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Clark 
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Cc: jasonre...@gmail.com 
>> Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 2:08 pm
>> Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:55 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> I still need to know how it became conscious when just using chips and
>> data*
>>
>>
>> I'll tell you just as soon as you tell me how 3 pounds of gray goo
>> inside of a vat made of bone that is sitting on your shoulders manages to
>> be conscious.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> 
>> vmb
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04H7Ry%3DctkkhfRUj_w5gid5u6txq-XYfsmbG8DkUXJ2Q%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgOh3J%2BWkRowuy3BTR48_C9RGVrhxLsVtg-k7UxzKsXnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

We ain't got (Forget Chomsky!) Marvin Minsky's Guy in a Box. Hal-9000 ain't 
arrived yet.
Now, if one is less driven by theory/ideology, one may focus on what is best 
for the human species?
What would be best would-be innovation machinery geared toward making 
discoveries and inventions that human research teams, that we wouldn't arrive 
at for decades of a century. 
There's 8.2 billion people on the planet if we need somebody to chat with, make 
rhymes, sum up permitted news items, articles, before 9/21/2021. (Chat3). For 
science articles it works less well then a parrot. I have tried.


-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 6:46 am
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

#yiv5524577622 p.yiv5524577622MsoNormal, #yiv5524577622 
p.yiv5524577622MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}

Am Mo, 13. Mär 2023, um 05:45, schrieb Brent Meeker:

An operational test for intelligence requires that ability to act in the world 
to achieve goals.  LLM's are intelligent in that they act to satisfy prompts.  
If you went to the beach and you said to a crab, "Write in the sand a short 
poem about waves."  and the crab scratched out:
 
 Born
 of wind and
 earth's embrace
 an ocean's memory of
 storms  beyond the horizon
 its undulating information uselessly inscribed
 in the meandering sand
 finds voice at last
 its fall a sigh a
 single syllable
 of surf
 
 You'd think the crab was pretty smart.  An LLM could do that.  The only reason 
for us thinking it is not intelligent is that we know how the LLM does it.  
When I first took a class in AI fifty years ago at UCLA. The Professor 
explained that the definition of intelligence was "whatever computers can't do 
yet." 


My first AI class was 27 years ago. The professor also mentioned that, but he 
started with the question: "why do we study artificial intelligence and not 
artificial stupidity?", and his answer was: "because stupidity is not a scarce 
resource".

Telmo



 Brent



On 3/12/2023 9:29 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Does it really display intelligent behavior, and now you will need to define 
intelligent behavior with testable parameters. Do humans display intelligent 
behavior? How often, and how consistently? Many say crows do.

This was part of my reason in hectoring JC on this. A neurobiologist tells, via 
research how parts of the human brain behave, and thus produce intelligence and 
(non-philosophically) consciousness. What part of the server farm enacts the 
illusion (I think) of intelligence? 




-Original Message-
 From: Stathis Papaioannou 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 12, 2023 9:29 pm
 Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky



On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 12:18, Jason Resch  wrote:



On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 8:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:



On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 04:12, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:

Remember no matter haw complex an algorithm it is ultimately a lot of Boolean 
switching acting on what ever data is dumped into it.


That means that if the entity displays intelligent behaviour, Boolean switching 
acting on whatever data is dumped into it can generate intelligent behaviour. 



Boolean logic gates (and, or, not) are universal. There's no finitely 
describable behavior that can't be replicated by the repeated application of 
boolean logic gates paired with a memory.


Yes. But more generally, even from a position of ignorance, if you don’t 
believe that something made from electrical circuitry (or whatever) can display 
intelligent behaviour, and something made from electrical circuitry does in 
fact display intelligent behaviour, that means you were wrong.



--
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXZLOOeKndehY1w3iseRPbrbF1HGG1dAk9rDh%3DvOtfVFA%40mail.gmail.com
.
-- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/922538855.1640289.1678681763911%40mail.yahoo.com.



-- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a38a6774-b5db-b940-d232-1d7f7aa5df3a%40gmail.com.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

Thinking and looking things up in a database like an LLM does to respond to a 
human is one thing, and a bs-machine is another.
Though GPT3 was fun parody music was excellent!

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 12:55 AM  wrote:

Would it be more accurate to think that unless something is driven by need, as 
in an amygdala, it is not alive. This may be a different question than is it 
intelligent, is it conscious? 

I think that's a reasonable definition of life. Even if the need is just the 
need to exist and persist, which is the root need on which evolutionary forces 
work.

I still need to know how it became conscious when just using chips and data? 
Would this then favor a pantheist point of view, or even panentheistic  one?

Can you think without being conscious, can you understand without being 
conscious, can you perceive without being conscious, can you feel with being 
conscious, can you know without being conscious?
Unless you answered 'yes' to all these questions, there are some behaviors and 
functions which necessitate consciousness. If we reproduce such functions in a 
machine then we have made a conscious machine.
Jason 

Me don't know? 

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 12:36 am
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 12:29 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Does it really display intelligent behavior, and now you will need to define 
intelligent behavior with testable parameters. Do humans display intelligent 
behavior? How often, and how consistently? Many say crows do.
This was part of my reason in hectoring JC on this. A neurobiologist tells, via 
research how parts of the human brain behave, and thus produce intelligence and 
(non-philosophically) consciousness. What part of the server farm enacts the 
illusion (I think) of intelligence? 

https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/#What_is_Intelligence

According to the agent-environment interaction model of intelligence, something 
is intelligent if it:
“perceives its environment and interacts with it in a manner consistent with 
achieving a goal.”
This definition captures the full spectrum of intelligent behavior, regardless 
of how simple or complex it is. It includes creatures from worms to humans, and 
machines from thermostats to chess playing AIs.
Jason 

-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 12, 2023 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 12:18, Jason Resch  wrote:

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 8:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 04:12, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:

Remember no matter haw complex an algorithm it is ultimately a lot of Boolean 
switching acting on what ever data is dumped into it.

That means that if the entity displays intelligent behaviour, Boolean switching 
acting on whatever data is dumped into it can generate intelligent behaviour.  

Boolean logic gates (and, or, not) are universal. There's no finitely 
describable behavior that can't be replicated by the repeated application of 
boolean logic gates paired with a memory.

Yes. But more generally, even from a position of ignorance, if you don’t 
believe that something made from electrical circuitry (or whatever) can display 
intelligent behaviour, and something made from electrical circuitry does in 
fact display intelligent behaviour, that means you were wrong.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXZLOOeKndehY1w3iseRPbrbF1HGG1dAk9rDh%3DvOtfVFA%40mail.gmail.com.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/922538855.1640289.1678681763911%40mail.yahoo.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjJt664RWY4as7etiAnPYZVVbmeHRwr9DnwQ-2S%2B2L1Nw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from

Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

I am a not a neurobiologist, old son. I could try to see if there are any 
papers out on grey goo becoming self-aware and self-reflecting?  My Definition! 
If you have a paper on how consciousness arises from intel, Nvida, and AMD 
chips please supply the link. It's chips and salsa to me. 
If you claim something just spoke from a D-Wave superchilled box and it asked 
how you were doing, I'd consider that a true possibility. Photonics? Ok lets 
roll with it. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: jasonre...@gmail.com 
Sent: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: ChatGPT's rebuttal to Chomsky

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:55 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> I still need to know how it became conscious when just using chips and data

I'll tell you just as soon as you tell me how 3 pounds of gray goo inside of a 
vat made of bone that is sitting on your shoulders manages to be conscious.  
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
vmb

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04H7Ry%3DctkkhfRUj_w5gid5u6txq-XYfsmbG8DkUXJ2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/680348776.214384.1678881566465%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

Connectome studies hold that "The Map is The Landscape." Thus, making uploading 
possible. 
When people like Ray Kurzweil were pontificating 25 years ago, it seemed back 
then like computer science would be roaring to The Singularity. Today, much of 
the goodies forecast by Kurz and everyone else seems sluggish, even with LLM's 
and quantum computing and its photonics cousin. Uploading seems as far away to 
me, as ever. 

-Original Message-
From: Terren Suydam 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 11:02 am
Subject: Re: The connectome and uploading

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:49 AM John Clark  wrote:

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:31 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> My intuition is that if we are going to successfully imitate biology we must 
> model the various neurotransmitters.

That is not my intuition. I see nothing sacred in hormones, I don't see the 
slightest reason why they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult 
to simulate through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of 
sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of Evolution's 
bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways of 
sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a bottle 
thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its random target.

I don't think the point is about the specific neurotransmitters (NTs) used in 
biological brains, but that there are multiple NTs which each activate 
separable circuits in the brain. It's probably adaptive to have multiple NTs, 
to further modularize the brain's functionality. This may be an important part 
of generalized intelligence.

I'm not interested in brain chemicals, only in the information they contain, if 
somebody wants  information to get transmitted from one place to another as 
fast and reliablely as possible, nobody would send smoke signals if they had a 
fiber optic cable. The information content in each molecular message must be 
tiny, just a few bits because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as 
acetylcholine, norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number is 
100 times greater (or a million times for that matter) the information content 
of each signal must be tiny. Also, for the long range stuff, exactly which 
neuron receives the signal can not be specified because it relies on a random 
process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses in February does not 
add to its charm.  

Similarly, NTs that produce effects on different timescales, or in terms of 
more diffuse targets, may provide functionality that a single, fast NT cannot 
achieve. You might call it Evolutionary bungling, but it's not necessarily the 
case that faster is always better.  I sometimes wonder how an AI that could 
process information a million times faster than a human could be capable of 
talking to humans. Imagine having to wait 20 years for a response - 
subjectively, that's how it might feel to a super-fast AI. 

Terren 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA_fxGMxWE-o8DzT7wWGimAJzV3B%2BOi4s3ozcP3-hfq4Ow%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1554578455.210257.167888764%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The connectome and uploading

The question offered up 6 weeks ago was how does the similarity to animal 
brains arise from a Server Farm? 
At this point, I claim it doesn't and that 3 and 4 are clever Language Machines.
To the claim that via magic, a consciousness arises in silicon or gallium 
arsenide seems a tall order. I have seen no article by any computer scientist, 
neurobiologist, or physicist, indicating HOW computer consciousness arose? If 
there is something out there, somebody please present a link to this august 
mailing-list. 
Now, for life arising out of chemicals on planet earth, I stumbled upon this 
yesterday. The theory is called Nickleback (O Canada!)

Scientists Have Found Molecule That Is Behind The Origin Of Life On Earth? Read 
To Know
https://www.republicworld.com/science/space/scientists-have-found-molecule-that-is-behind-the-origin-of-life-on-earth-read-to-know-articleshow.html

Somebody come up with a theory that network systems can accidentally produce a 
human level mind, before we celebrate chat4 overmuch. 
Let humans come up with a network that invents technology that produce 
inventions that humans alone would not have arrived at for decades of 
centuries! That, would be the big breakthrough, and not a fun chatbox.

-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 11:45 am
Subject: Re: The connectome and uploading

#yiv1573443158 p.yiv1573443158MsoNormal, #yiv1573443158 
p.yiv1573443158MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}#yiv1573443158 p.yiv1573443158MsoNormal, 
#yiv1573443158 p.yiv1573443158MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}

Am Di, 14. Mär 2023, um 13:48, schrieb John Clark:

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:31 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> One of the authors of the article says "It’s interesting that the 
>computer-science field is converging onto what evolution has discovered", he 
>said that because it turns out that 41% of the fly brain's neurons are in 
>recurrent loops that provide feedback to other neurons that are upstream of 
>the data processing path, and that's just what we see in modern AIs like 
>ChatGPT.

> I do not think this is true. ChatGPT is a fine-tuned Large Language Model 
> (LLM), and LLMs use a transformer architecture, which is deep but purely 
> feed-forward, and uses attention heads. The attention mechanism was the big 
> breakthrough back in 2017, that finally enabled the training of such big 
> models:

I was under the impression that transformers are superior to recurrent neural 
networks because recurrent processing of data was not necessary with 
transformers so more paralyzation is possible than with recursive neural 
networks; it can analyze an entire sentence at once and doesn't need to do so 
word by word.  So Transformers learn faster and need less trading data.

It is true that transformers are faster for the reason you say, but the 
vanishing gradient problem was definitely an issue. Right before transformers, 
the dominant architecture was LSTM, which was recurrent but designed in such a 
way as to deal with the vanishing gradient:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_short-term_memory

Memory is the obvious way to deal with context, but like you say transformers 
consider the entire sentence (or more) all at once. Attention heads allow for 
parallel learning to focus on several aspects of the sentence at the same time, 
and then combining them at higher and higher layers of abstraction.

I do not think that any of this has any impact on the size of the training 
corpus required.

> My intuition is that if we are going to successfully imitate biology we must 
> model the various neurotransmitters.

That is not my intuition. I see nothing sacred in hormones,

I agree that there is nothing sacred about hormones, the only important thing 
is that there are several of them, with different binding properties. Current 
artificial neural networks (ANNs) only have one type of signal between neurons, 
the activation signal. Our brains can signal different things, importantly 
using dopamine to regulate learning -- and thus serve as a building block for a 
decentralized, emergent learning algorithm that clearly can deal with recursive 
connections with no problem.

With recursive connections a NN becomes Turing complete. I would be extremely 
surprised if Turing completeness turns out to not be a requirement for AGI.

I don't see the slightest reason why they or any neurotransmitter would be 
especially difficult to simulate through computation, because chemical 
messengers are not a sign of sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's 
an example of Evolution's bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron 
there are better ways of sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule 
like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to 
diffuse to its random target.

Of course, they are easy to simulate. Another question is if they are easy to 
simulate at the speed that we can perform gradient descent using

Re: Does rationalism lend itself to nation building?