Science doesn't explain everything. It just tries to. It doesn't explain why the universe exists. Philosophy does. It exists as a necessary condition for the question to exist.
Chalmers is mystified by consciousness like most of us are. Science can explain why we are mystified. It explains why it seems like a hard problem. It explains why you keep asking the wrong question. Math explains why no program can model itself. Science explains that your brain runs a program. On Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 11:53 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI < agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > Perhaps not explain then, but we could access accepted theory on a topic > via a sound method of integration in order to construct enough of an > understanding to at least be sure what we are talking about. Should we not > at least be trying to do that? > > Maybe it's a case of no one really being curious and passionate enough to > take the time to do the semantic work. Or is it symbolic of another > problem? I think it's a very brave thing to talk publicly about a subject > we all agree we seemingly know almost nothing about. Yet, we should at > least try to do that as well. > > Therefore, to explain is to know? > > Rob > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, 22 September 2018 6:12 PM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... > (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?) > > The theory that contemporary science can explain everything requires a > fundamental denial of history and a kind of denial about the limits of > cotemporary science. That sort of denial of common knowledge is ill suited > for adaptation. It will interfere with your ability to use scientific > method. > Jim Bromer > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:42 AM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Qualia is what perceptions feel like and feelings are computable and they > condition us to believe there is something magical and mysterious about it? > This is science fiction. So science has already explained Chalmer's Hard > Problem of Consciousness. He just got it wrong? Is that what you are > saying? > Jim Bromer > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM Matt Mahoney via AGI < > agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > > I was applying John's definition of qualia, not agreeing with it. My > definition is qualia is what perception feels like. Perception and feelings > are both computable. But the feelings condition you to believing there is > something magical and mysterious about it. > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 8:44 AM Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > wrote: > > There is a distinction between the qualia of human experience and the > consciousness of what the mind is presenting. If you deny that you have the > kind of experience that Chalmers talks about then there is a question of > why are you denying it. So your remarks are relevant to AGI but not the way > you are talking about them. If Matt says qualia is not real then he is > saying that it is imaginary because I am pretty sure that he experiences > things in ways similar to Chalmers and a lot of other people I have talked > to. There are people who have claimed that I would not be able to create an > artificial imagination. That is nonsense. An artificial imagination is > easy. The complexity of doing that well is not. That does not mean however, > that the hard problem of consciousness is just complexity. One is doable in > computer programming, in spite of any skepticism, the other is not. > Jim Bromer > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Bromer via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > > > So John's attempt to create a definition of compression of something > > complicated so that it can be communicated might be the start of the > > development of something related to contemporary AI but the attempt to > > claim that it defines qualia is so naïve that it is not really relevant > to the subject > > of AGI. > > > Jim, > > Engineers make a box with lines on it and label it "magic goes here". > > Algorithmic information theory does the same and calls it compression. > > The word "subjective" is essentially the same thing. > > AGI requires sensory input. > > Human beings are compression engines... each being unique. > > The system of human beings is a general intelligence. > > How do people communicate? > > What are the components of AGI and how will they sense and communicate? > > They guys that came up with the term "qualia" left it as a mystery so it's > getting hijacked 😊 This is extremely common with scientific terminology. > > BTW I'm not trying to define it universally just as something > computationally useful in AGI R&D... but it's starting to seem like it's > central. Thus IIT? Tononi or Tononi-like? Not sure... have to do some > reading but prefer coming up with something simple and practical without > getting too ethereal. TGD consciousness is pretty interesting though and a > good exercise in some mind-bending reading. > > John > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-Md85ec65736ec951999671346> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-Md397dae74fe5d9429c20ff8f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
