Well, that’s very interesting. I think I see what you are saying, originate and derive everything, or most things, from the emerging consciousness as a first person narrative so to say.. with just some basic symbolistic tools. Not sure about Extended Mind but with the DIS coupling model... well it might. The DIS model is a belief system with uncertainties stimuli/ response..with validation and ideologies... It’s structure is a priori though I wonder if you could emerge some type of structure from the first person narrative given basic rules and computational ability.
But - we’re all conscious beings already living in physics space, our consciousness flows into a new one so to say. Shan’t we impart to the new one what we have learned? John From: martin biehl via AGI [mailto:[email protected]] John: "It has to have a connection to physics particularly engineering in this case. Theories that claim to break the laws of physics still reside within the laws of physics. Even a bunch of abstract math still is represented and operates within those laws." Hm, but you can choose I think, to approach an explanation of the phenomenal world via materialistic theories like physics, i.e. there is some matter out there and it obeys these laws and we are made out of that matter hence our thoughts are determined by that matter and its laws. Or you choose a more mental approach and say, my thoughts and maybe other's thoughts as well are the thing I am most sure of and they obey some dynamics which make everything out there appear just the way it appears, including the physical laws. If you can formalize some dynamics of thought, then physics could be a consequence of those dynamics and not the other way around. I guess this extended mind and deontical impure systems stuff falls into this category? Correct me if I am wrong. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I haven't had time to read Ben's paper or most of the other papers alluded to in this conversation but a fundamental property mentioned in the Aaronson blog is the ITT theory: (1) to propose a quantitative measure, called Φ, of the amount of “integrated information” in a physical system (i.e. information that can’t be localized in the system’s individual parts), and then (2) to hypothesize that a physical system is “conscious” if and only if it has a large value of Φ—and indeed, that a system is more conscious the larger its Φ value. I have stressed the importance of 'integrating' knowledge for a long time and the basis of the necessity of that integration is that knowledge is not always going to be commensurate (mathematically, literally or by object) with other related knowledge. (And many ideas that we use when we think about a target subject aren't central to the subject). But the idea that that kind of incommensurate integration can stand as a valuation of 'consciousness' is a little far fetched. You could, for example, create a great deal of integration within a system of ideas and create a lot of nonsense. And the ITT measure misses the point (at least as far as my interests go) that I really want to be able to discover how knowledge can be integrated by a program well, not just how it might be measured. I go on with my theories and point out that subject boundaries have to be transcended at times but this does not mean that the boundaries, once transcended, can be ignored. I think the application of ITT as a working AGI principle suggests that this is not necessarily the case. So, for example, while the brain should theoretically be represented by physical valuations, there is no reason why it should be considered reducible to such valuations. And one other thing. Biochemistry is not the step child of physics. It never has been and there is no way of knowing that biochemistry will one day be reduced to physics. Unless you are talking about a new kind of physics that is still developing. Jim Bromer On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:12 AM, John Rose via AGI <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: It has to have a connection to physics particularly engineering in this case. Theories that claim to break the laws of physics still reside within the laws of physics. Even a bunch of abstract math still is represented and operates within those laws. There may be new laws unknown... With human consciousness theories I think we need to keep a keen eye on developments in quantum consciousness. Engineering consciousness might only require subset and functionality equivalences to get something up and running not the whole kit and caboodle with Psi et al. I think that what Ben is driving towards with his paper in terms of characterizing human-like consciousness. You have to know what it is before you build it. John From: martin biehl via AGI [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 9:23 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Review paper on measuring consciousness Thanks John, that helped me more than those links. So does it have a connection to physics at all or is it more like a "pure mental substance" theory as opposed to the physical "pure material substance" theories? If it is purely mental, again thanks for the heads up. Then I am intrigued. Are there other ones in the same vein? Maybe with fewer axioms? Well now that I think of it the standard model needs a lot of axioms as well if you were to list them all at once I guess... So tell me guys is there more like that out there? I only know about physicalist formal theories. Must be my education.... On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: The Extended Mind hypothesis isn't really nonsense; Andy Clark and others have made a pretty strong case that it's valuable to contain tools and other parts of an agent's nearby, habitual environment as part of the agent's mind (since they are engaged in tight feedback loops w/ the other parts of the agent's mind, and the other parts of the agent's mind have specifically adapted to them) It's hard to effectively analyze the average Hongkongese girl's mind without considering her smartphone as part of the system, for example ;-) -- Ben G On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > That's being kind. Actually it is complete nonsense. > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ben Goertzel via AGI <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >> Yes, that's interesting. More consideration of the Extended Mind >> aspects of consciousness would probably be valuable to incorporate in >> the paper... >> >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:44 PM, John Rose via AGI <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >>> Adding to my comment, one could characterize human-like consciousness in >>> terms of relationships and beliefs borrowed from social systems theory >>> including ideas and things similar to Deontical Impure Systems, Alysidal >>> algebra, gnorpsic functions, etc.. Consciousness you could say is relations >>> between systems and in this particular case human belief systems, see: >>> >>> http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/Tesis_Nescolarde.pdf >>> http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajss/2/2/2/ > > -- > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19237892-5029d625 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/? > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> & > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
