On 2/19/15, Aaron Hosford via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
It does have a tie in to AGI in terms of quantum computing. If you have a bit that can be in several arbitrary states at once it changes the nature of what is possible in computing (although I know you can find ways to simulate quantum computing on more or less regular platforms, it is too slow). Humans seem to be in muddled and ill-defined mental states most of the time, so I see the tie in, although I don't know how to implement such a thing at present. > 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/303/11943661-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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
