On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I did not say the physics was unknown. I said that it must exist. The
physics is already known.Empirically and theoretically. It's just not
recognised in-situ and by the appropriate people. It's an implication of
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab coat.
Maybe not a lab coat... but how about my trusty wizard's hat??? ;-)
http://i34.tinypic.com/14lmqg0.jpg
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab coat.
Maybe not a lab coat... but how about my trusty wizard's hat??? ;-)
http://i34.tinypic.com/14lmqg0.jpg
Don't you know that only clown suit interacts
Excellent. I want one! Maybe they should be on sale at the next
conference...there's a marketing edge for ya.
If I have to be as wrong as Vladimir says I'll need the right clothes.
:-)
cheers
colin
Ben Goertzel wrote:
And you
can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker,
How the Mind Works. It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can
predict what image
2008/10/4 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Will,
It's not an easy thing to fully internalise the implications of quantum
degeneracy. I find physicists and chemists have no trouble accepting it, but
in the disciplines above that various levels of mental brick walls are in
place. Unfortunately
Hi all,
This seems to have touched a point of interest. I'll try and address all
the issues raised in one post. I hope I don't miss any of them. Please
remind me if I have. Apologies if I don;t reference the originator of
the query explicitly. You know who you are!
Re 'defining terms'.
1)
To me, computationalism, defined via
Computationalism. = _abstract_ symbol manipulation.
is an **interpretation** of certain things that occur inside computers
sometimes ...
The fact that this is a bad interpretation, doesn't imply that computer
themselves aren't able to carry out advanced
Hi Vladimir,
I did not say the physics was unknown. I said that it must exist. The
physics is already known.Empirically and theoretically. It's just not
recognised in-situ and by the appropriate people. It's an implication of
the quantum non-locality underpinning electrodynamics. Extensions of
Colin,
I believe you did not reply to my points? Based on your definition of
computationalism, it appears that my criticism of your argument does
apply after all. To restate:
Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered
restatement:
1. We have a visual experience of the
Abram,
thx for restating his argument
Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered
restatement:
1. We have a visual experience of the world.
2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient
to compute one.
I do not understand his argument for
Ben,
I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker,
How the Mind Works. It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can
predict what image will be formed on the retina from material
arrangements, but if we want to go backwards and find the arrangements
from the retinal image,
Agreed. Colin would need to show the inadequacy of both inborn and
learned bias to show the need for extra input. But I think the more
essential objection is that extra input is still consistent with
computationalism.
--Abram
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. Colin would need to show the inadequacy of both inborn and
learned bias to show the need for extra input. But I think the more
essential objection is that extra input is still consistent with
computationalism.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguably, for instance, camera+lidar gives enough data for reconstruction of
the visual scene ... note that lidar gives more more accurate 3D depth ata
than stereopsis...
Is that even true anymore? I thought the big
cool ... if so, I'd be curious for the references... I'm not totally up on
that area...
ben
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguably, for instance, camera+lidar gives enough data
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguably, for instance, camera+lidar gives enough data for reconstruction
of the visual scene ... note that lidar gives more more accurate 3D depth
ata than stereopsis...
Also, for that matter, 'visual' input to an AGI
OK. Last one!
Please replace 2) with:
2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient
to construct a visual scene.
Whether or not that 'constuct' arises from computation is a matter of
semantics. I would say that it could be considered computation - natural
computation by
I suppose what you mean is something like:
***
The information from the retina is inadequate to construct a representation
of the world around the human organism that is as accurate as could be
constructed by an ideal perceiving-system receiving the same light beams
that the human eye receives.
Thank you Colin, that reply is completely satisfying! In fact, ignore
the email I just sent off-list. (Still not convinced that COMP is
definitely false, but I see how it could be, if you don't want to
count quantum computers as computers, and think the brain harnesses
quantum computation.)
For
Note that quantum computers cannot compute anything except Turing-computable
functions. Their only difference is that they can compute some things
massively faster, in the average case.
Thus, if a certain body of data is insufficient for a classical computer to
draw a conclusion (given infinite
Ben,
I think the entanglement possibility is precisely what Colin believes.
That is speculation on my part of course. But it is something like
that. Also, it is possible that quantum computers can do more than
normal computers-- just not under the current theories. Colin hinted
at some physics
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
I think the entanglement possibility is precisely what Colin believes.
That is speculation on my part of course. But it is something like
that. Also, it is possible that quantum computers can do more than
normal
Hi Colin,
I'm not entirely sure that computers can implement consciousness. But
I don't find your arguments sway me one way or the other. A brief
reply follows.
2008/10/4 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Next empirical fact:
(v) When you create a turing-COMP substrate the interface with space
Basically, you are saying that there is some unknown physics mojo
going on. The mystery of mind looks as mysterious as mystery of
physics, therefore it requires mystery of physics and can derive
further mysteriousness from it, becoming inherently mysterious. It's
bad, bad non-science.
--
Hi Colin,
Many thanks for detailed reply. You seem to be taking a long-winding
philosophical route to asserting that intelligence depends on consciousness,
in the sense of what I would call a sensory movie of the world - vision +
sound/smell/taste etc.
I absolutely agree with that basic
Hi Will,
It's not an easy thing to fully internalise the implications of quantum
degeneracy. I find physicists and chemists have no trouble accepting it,
but in the disciplines above that various levels of mental brick walls
are in place. Unfortunately physicists and chemists aren't usually
Original Message -
From: Colin Hales
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] COMP = f
...
You are exactly right: humans don't encounter the world directly (naive
realism). Nor are we entirely operating from a cartoon visual
The argument seems wrong to me intuitively, but I'm hard-put to argue
against it because the terms are so unclearly defined ... for instance I
don't really know what you mean by a visual scene ...
I can understand that to create a form of this argument worthy of being
carefully debated, would be
--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I can just paint a mental picture of the job the brain has to do.
Imagine this:
You have no phenomenal consciousness at all. Your internal life is of a
dreamless sleep.
Except ... for a new perceptual mode called Wision.
Looming
Matt:The problem you describe is to reconstruct this image given the highly
filtered and compressed signals that make it through your visual perceptual
system, like when an artist paints a scene from memory. Are you saying that
this process requires a consciousness because it is otherwise not
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Matt:The problem you describe is to reconstruct this image given the highly
filtered and compressed signals that make it through your visual perceptual
system, like when an artist paints a scene from memory. Are you saying
Ben,
Thanks for reply. I'm a bit lost though. How does this formula take into
account the different pixel configurations of different objects? (I would have
thought we can forget about the time of display and just concentrate on the
configurations of points/colours, but no doubt I may be
Ok, at a single point in time on a 600x400 screen, if one is using 24-bit
color (usually called true color) then the number of possible images is
2^(600x400x24)
which is, roughly, 10 with a couple million zeros after it ... way bigger
than a googol, way way smaller than a googolplex ;-)
This is
Hi Mike,
I can give the highly abridged flow of the argument:
!) It refutes COMP , where COMP = Turing machine-style abstract symbol
manipulation. In particular the 'digital computer' as we know it.
2) The refutation happens in one highly specific circumstance. In being
false in that
35 matches
Mail list logo
