Did anyone actually look at Ben's paper? I have one comment on Tononi's integrated information theory of consciousness. Ben already criticizes it (e.g. it makes countries more conscious than their inhabitants). But here is another criticism. Tononi never rigorously defines his measure (phi). When Maguire et al ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0126 ) attempt to do this in a reasonable way, they argue that the function is not computable. But my interpretation is that the function does not exist. Look at definition 2. They define a 1-1 function m(z) as integrating over z if for any two strings z and z', C(m(z')|m(z)) >= C(m(z')) - C(z'|z), where C(.) is information content (compressed size). The definition means that knowing m(z) does not help describe m(z') even when z and z' are close. For example, if m() is an encryption function and you change one bit of z, then you completely change m(z) in an apparently random way. Therefore, encryption would be an integrating function (and therefore conscious).
But in my interpretation, integrating functions do not exist. m is 1-1 and therefore invertible. If you know m(z) then you know z. You can encode C(m(z')|m(z)) by encoding m (the encryption key) and the bit that was flipped. To decode m(z') given m(z), you decrypt z, flip one bit to get z', and encrypt m(z'). Note that the encoding is smaller than C(m(z')) - C(z'|z) = C(m) + C(z') - C(z'|z) (size of the encryption key + size of z - description of the changed bit) for any reasonably large z. This also holds for 1-1 functions m in general because C(m) is fixed while we can make C(z) arbitrarily large. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes I think that 80% of the people on this list think that every > other AGI researcher besides themselves is a "laughingstock" ;-p .... > While this list does have its value, and a certain number of excellent > participants, I am very glad it is not representative of the overall > AGI research community ;) > > -- ben > > > But does that mean that you are .8 in > the I-think-everyone-else-is-a-laughingstock group and .2 in the other? > These meta-discussions are like pits of psychological projection. You > can't condemn 80% of the population of the group because your ideas are the > target of a few trivial and annoyingly vague criticisms without possibly > coming across as trivial and petty. Part of the basis of genuine research > (which includes the arm-chair stage if not the arm-chair crowd) involves > criticism of ideas and efforts. If you were able to assist the critics to > help them learn to express whatever it is that they are trying to express > in more insightful ways, you might gain a little more out of the process. > Jim Bromer > > > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The paper is called "Characterizing Human-Like Consciousness", and >> explicitly does not attempt to address the issue of "the structure of >> consciousness for minds in general" .... I suspect that the first >> practical AGIs created will be roughly human-like in their cognitive >> structures... >> >> Sometimes I think that 80% of the people on this list think that every >> other AGI researcher besides themselves is a "laughingstock" ;-p .... >> While this list does have its value, and a certain number of excellent >> participants, I am very glad it is not representative of the overall >> AGI research community ;) >> >> -- ben >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Not to demote Ben to laughing stock, but certainly the silliness of >> becoming an expert on consciousness by syncretizing academic theories on >> consciousness is right up there with the ridiculousness of AIXI, >> mathematical theories of life, God etc. >> > >> > Anyway, I don't have anything better to offer, except a reminder that >> we can hardly measure consciousness in the organisms we are familiar with, >> and, if at some point we can "prove" that life is different from >> intelligence and intelligence is different from consciousness (all of which >> I highly doubt), then it will most likely be like jazz: if it needs to be >> explained to you, you will most likely never get it. I should close with my >> standard disclaimer that, in the infinite set of (artificial) intellects >> there is a tiny, negligible and probably undetectable subset of human-like >> intellects, so the practicability of Ben's ruminations --> 0 - sorry again >> Ben! >> > >> > AT >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> http://goertzel.org >> >> "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. >> James T. Kirk >> >> "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can free >> our minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3701026-786a0853> | Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
