> -----Original Message----- > From: Russ Hurlbut via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > 1. Where do you lean regarding the measure of intelligence? - more towards > that of Hutter (the ability to predict the future) or towards > Winser-Gross/Freer > (causal entropy - soft of a proxy for future opportunities; ref > https://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf)
Russ, I see intelligence, in one way, as efficiency, increasing intelligence as efficiency increase. Measuring would be comparing efficiencies. Predicting futures is a form of attaining efficiencies but I usually lean towards the thermodynamical aspects when theorizing but that is somewhat virtualized in software to the information theory analogues. > 2. Do you > agree with Tegmark's position regarding consciousness? Namely, > "Consciousness might feel so non-physical because it is doubly substrate > independent: > * Any chunk of matter can be the substrate for memory as long as it has many > different stable states; > * Any matter can be computronium, the substrate for computation, as long as > it contains certain universal building blocks that can be combined to > implement any function. NAND gates and neurons are two important examples > of such universal "computational atoms.". > Definitely agree with the digital physics aspects. IMO all matter is memory and computation. Everything is effectively storing and computing. Also I think everything can be interpreted as language. And when you think about it, it is. Example, take an individual molecule and calculate it's alphabet based on atomic positions. The molecule is effectively talking with positional subsets or words. It can also speak a continuous language verses individual probabilistic states based on heat or whatever. And some matter would be more intelligent being more computationally flexible. > If consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain > complex ways, then it's merely the structure of the information processing > that > matters, not the structure of the matter doing the information processing. A > wave can travel across the lake, even though none of its water molecules do. > It's not the particles but the pattern that really matters. > (A Tegmark cliff notes version of can be found here: > https://quevidaesta2010.blogspot.com/2017/10/life-30-max-tegmark.html) > Now you're making me have to think. It's both right? The wave going across a different lake, say a lake of liquid methane, will have different waveform. Not sure how you can separate the structural complexity of the processing from the processed since information is embedded in matter. Language, math, symbols must be represented physically (for example on ink or in the brain). In an electronic computer though it is very separate, the electrons and holes on silicon highways are strongly decoupled from the higher level informational representation they are shuttling... hmmm! John ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M936f76447ec1d2ade78e9d8f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
