People keep trying to connect quantum physics with consciousness and AGI. I have yet to see how quantum physics has *anything* to do with *either*, except to open the door to mystery and the unknown, a role normally filled by god in a more religious context. It seems to me to be nothing more than a bit of spice thrown into the mix, to allow us to do some hocus pocus hand waving and thereby push out the need to actually *understand *the phenomenon, projecting it onto some unknown and unknowable phenomenon, much like the humours, homonculi, and vital forces of times past.
Could you explain to me what specifically connects quantum physics to the concept of consciousness, at least in your own mind, other than this quasimagical explain-it-later effect? I honestly don't see the connection, nor the need. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI < [email protected]> wrote: > @ Aaron > > The total thought I shared is a holistic, quantum thought. Therefore, > unless the bottom-line question is addressed, it would not serve a useful > purpose to try and destroy the whole by focusing on one paragraph. That > should be clear from the beginning, middle and end of the thought, as our > topic. > > Specifically, my suggestion would be to consider the point on parallel > universes - which I maintain is quite relevant for the emergence of a > complex, adaptive machine with a sense of consciousness - and entanglement > and quantum fabric, as standing apart from its contentious form introduced > here, which was adequately dealt with in the last few words of that, > particular paragraph. The whole remains independent of personal beliefs. > > The notion of classical versus quantum science, and its history, was dealt > with extensively in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ > > Rob > > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:09:10 -0600 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Couple thoughts > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Clearly, collective science still cannot prove how two, parallel universes > are entangled and by which quantum fabric. For now then, science has to > remain a belief system, supported by doctrine and the theoretical > acceptance of its own evidence. Sounds similar to a religion, does it not? > Perhaps, science merely avoids the religion trap by leaving "God" out of > hypotheses, but that is a matter Ben has seemingly dealt with most > effectively, in my opinion. > > > Science is fundamentally different from religion not because of what it > says, but why it says it. The distinction has nothing to do with god, per > se, as science would be equally meaningful whether there is a god or not. > They differ instead on how (and how much) certainty is ascertained. Science > requires falsifiable hypotheses and uses evidence to test them, and even > then does not pronounce them as Truth, but merely as accepted fact for the > time being. Religion is a matter of faith, pronouncing untestable > hypotheses as Truth without evidence. > > The interpretation of quantum theory is not the theory itself. The theory > is a collection of mathematical equations that, when applied a particular > way to reality, have been shown through evidence to effectively predict > certain outcomes. There is nothing about that which makes it a "belief > system" in the sense you are using it; it is a tool that has been shown to > be effective, and nothing more. There is no assumption that we will never > find cases where that tool fails, or that there is no better tool waiting > to be created. Science is inherently open to growth and change, and it is > this refusal to ever call anything the Truth and claim we're all done is > what allows science to continually come closer to actually finding the > right answers, rather than perpetually holding on to the same errors like > religion does. (In machine learning terms, religion converges prematurely, > whereas science is an asymptotically convergent algorithm.) > > The interpretation, on the other hand, is a matter of personal perspective > -- an attempt to connect the workings of the well tested tool known as > quantum theory to the human intuition in a way that might permit us to > engage that intuition to further the theory's use or design. The parallel > universes interpretation is just one of many such interpretations -- one > that happens to run counter to my own intuition. But no one, at least among > the physicists I am aware of, tries to say their particular interpretation > is the Truth. They do not "have faith" in their interpretations, but simply > treat them as possibilities to be considered. Consequently, this is not a > "belief system", but an attempt at understanding which is acknowledged as > incomplete and quite possibly not the right answer. > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI > <[email protected]> wrote: > > My sincere apologies, I did not mean to imply that Deric was the author of > the "criticality proper" result, but inadvertently the context read as > such. Please accept the correction. Thank you. > > Rob > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] Couple thoughts > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:34:38 +0200 > > > Are Gell-Mann's intermediate AIC and Deric's "criticality proper" similar > to C. Alexander's "The void"? Could this be the dynamically undecidable > zone, which quantum entanglement might be associated with? Is it > computable? According to classical logic and classical science, it should > not be computable. > > Would the undecidable zone serve as a potential example of Shroedinger's > cat, or vice versa, and if so, does the recent report on a simultaneous, > dual-state provide hope for its computability? To my mind it would have, if > it were on one machine, and not two. > > Clearly, collective science still cannot prove how two, parallel universes > are entangled and by which quantum fabric. For now then, science has to > remain a belief system, supported by doctrine and the theoretical > acceptance of its own evidence. Sounds similar to a religion, does it not? > Perhaps, science merely avoids the religion trap by leaving "God" out of > hypotheses, but that is a matter Ben has seemingly dealt with most > effectively, in my opinion. > > Still, a group of us can sit here, quite casually, and move in and out of > the undecidability zone without too much difficulty. That, to me then, is > the real hope of computability, of shifting the boundary on > "undecidability" to a further point of "undecidability". It lives here with > us, in AGI and in similar discussions zones. > > What if Shroedinger's cat got another life, or many antithesis-induced > lives, and there were as many cats as there were dynamics of any order, one > instance of which was the zone itself? Would this resemble Hawking's > perpendicular dimension of "imagination time"? > > So then, when our human, critical consciousness could exist in a single, > entangled state where imagination becomes reality, and reality becomes > imagination, where Gestalt is, and is not, within the same timespace, > unequally so, there might yet be hope for our machine about 7 degrees from > the boundary of disorder, as an independent reality. > > This begs the question: "Is optimal consciousness (in the sense of > largest-possible effective complexity) a quantum phenomenon, or a product > of mere memory?". > > Rob > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] Couple thoughts > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:08:53 +0200 > > @ Russ > > Exciting! Thanks for this contribution. > > The diagram maps closely to what Gell-Mann (1994) describes as, and > diagrammatically represents to be, Large Effective Complexity and > Intermediate AIC (Algorithmic Information Content). The state of largest, > effective complexity matches very closely to this result. > > He summarizes his sketch, as a "crude illustration" to mean: > "...effective complexity of a system (relative to a properly functioning > complex adaptive system as observer) varies with AIC, attaining high values > only in the intermediate region between excessive order and excessive > disorder." Further, he points out that: "Many important quantities that > occur in discussions of simplicity, complexity, and complex adaptive > systems [such as the AGI forum] share the property that they can be large > only in that intermediate region." (p.60) > > The above relates to information compressionability. > > Rob > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:51:18 -0600 > Subject: Re: [agi] Couple thoughts > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > ...and now fo something completely different... > > > http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2015/02/psilocybin-as-key-to-consciousness.html > > Regardless of the space cowboy nature to the title of this link's > blog post that appeared today, there is relevant research behind it that > touches on some of the well made points presented in this thread. > > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015, Mike Archbold via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 2/17/15, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> I think under this approach, it "bans" work on trying to actually > >> figure out the answers to these tough questions, and instead places > >> emphasis on replicating the means (mechanics of the brain) that > >> generates whatever it is we call consciousness. I mean, under this > >> school of thought, if we don't know how consciousness solves hard > >> problems, so what? As long as it works by copying the > >> physics/mechanics/etc of the brain (that being the obviously gigantic > >> challenge, of course) that is all that is required. > > > > Consciousness is the feelings (reinforcement signals, mostly positive) > > that you associate with sensory perception and thoughts (recalled > > memories) as they are written into episodic memory (memory associated > > with a time or place). It only seems mysterious because reinforcement > > signals alter your beliefs. Your brain works that way because it > > increases your reproductive fitness. Even though you can't objectively > > believe what I just stated, you want your consciousness to continue by > > not dying. > > > > You don't need to model consciousness to solve most AI problems like > > vision, language, or robotics. You do need to model belief in > > consciousness as well as other types of reinforcement learning (such > > as beliefs in free will and identity) in order to model or predict > > human behavior. It is not hard to do that once you understand where > > these illusions come from. > > > > It is a distraction to think that you have to replicate consciousness > > to solve AI. It is like thinking that birds fly by some magic that you > > have to replicate in order to build airplanes. > > > > -- > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > > > > I see your point. It contentious. There is still a certain appeal > to any approach that tries to skirt completely around the, well, > contentious problems. Neural nets, as you know, have always been that > way, just a black box for the most part. Whole brain emulation, I > think, which to me means a straight copy of the highest fidelity, > should be taken into account, even if you don't agree with someone's > approach under that flag. If consciousness is or isn't part of it is > not as important as whether or not the copy is faithful to the > original brain. If so, it will work. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > 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 > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18488709-8cf25195 > 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/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <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
