It's not solved by shielding, because the hypothetical "computable source whose algorithmic information is too high for me to grok it" could be within the molecules of the brain, just where the hypothetical "uncomputable source" is hypothesized to be by Penrose and Hammeroff and so forth.
You can never do any experiment to distinguish directly between A = "X is uncomputable" and B = "X is a computable but has an algorithmic information far higher than my brain." You can distinguish between them indirectly via inference according to some theory, but, then the extension of theory to deal with A and B is going to be speculative and unsupported, etc. -- Ben G On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think this is reasonable. For the experiment, we would isolate > you with various shielding. It is a question of the design of an > experiment, like any other physics experiment. At some point, > Occam's Razor tells you that the best theory is a non-computational > system. > > And, I hate to be defending people who make this kind of claim, > because their claims are wrong-- since what they are claiming to > have observed the mind do could easily be done by a computer. > And the kind of stuff I am saying you would use to test it > I don't believe people could do. > > But the point is only that one could perform experiments that would > test the hypothesis. The claim that such experiments would have to > be infinitely long to be convincing is not valid, I don't believe. > > > > Ben> Eric, According to your argument, there are some cases in which > Ben> you could demonstrate that I was producing outputs that could not > Ben> be generated by the specific computer that is **my brain** > Ben> according to our current understanding of my brain. > > Ben> However, this would not demonstrate that the source is > Ben> noncomputational. There are other possible explanations, such as > Ben> the explanation that there is some more powerful computer > Ben> somewhere generating the outputs, in a way that we don't > Ben> currently understand. > > Ben> So the question then becomes how would you distinguish between > Ben> the hypothesis of a hidden noncomputational source, and a hidden > Ben> more-powerful-computer source? Again, you need to make this > Ben> distinction using a finite set of finite-precision > Ben> observations.... And so my argument then applies again to this > Ben> additional set of observations.... > > Ben> So I don't see that you have really provided a counterexample. > Ben> However, I can see the value of formalizing my argument > Ben> mathematically so as to avoid the appearance of such loopholes... > > Ben> ben g > > Ben> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ben> wrote: > > >> >> You have not convinced me that you can do anything a computer > >> can't do. >> And, using language or math, you never will -- > >> because any finite set of symbols >> you can utter, could also be > >> uttered by some computational system. >> -- Ben G > >> > >> I have the sense that this argument is not air tight, because I can > >> imagine a zero-knowledge proof that you can do something a computer > >> can't do. > >> > >> Any finite set of symbols you utter *could*, of course, be > >> utterable by some computational system, but if they are generated > >> in response to queries that are not known in advance, it might be > >> arbitrarily unlikely that they *would* be uttered by any particular > >> computational system. > >> > >> For example, to make this concrete and airtight, I can add a time > >> element. Say I compute offline the answers to a large number of > >> problems that, if one were to solve them with a computation, > >> provably could only be solved by extremely long sequential > >> computations, each longer than any sequential computation that a > >> computer that could possibly be built out of the matter in your > >> brain could compute in an hour, and I present you these problems > >> and you answer 10000 of them in half an hour. At this point, I am > >> going, I think, to be pursuaded that you are doing something that > >> can not be captured by a Turing machine. > >> > >> Not that I believe, of course, that you can do anything a computer > >> can't do. I'm just saying, the above argument is not a proof that, > >> if you could, it could not be demonstrated. > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS > >> Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your > >> Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: > >> http://www.listbox.com > >> > > > > Ben> -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director > Ben> of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ben> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an > Ben> invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a > Ben> sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the > Ben> dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve > Ben> equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a > Ben> computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. > Ben> Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein > > > > Ben> ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: > Ben> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: > Ben> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your > Ben> Subscription: > Ben> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Ben> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > Ben> <br>Eric,<br><br>According to your argument, there are some cases > Ben> in which you could demonstrate that I was producing outputs that > Ben> could not be generated by the specific computer that is **my > Ben> brain** according to our current understanding of my brain.<br> > Ben> <br>However, this would not demonstrate that the source is > Ben> noncomputational. There are other possible explanations, > Ben> such as the explanation that there is some more powerful computer > Ben> somewhere generating the outputs, in a way that we don't > Ben> currently understand. <br> <br>So the question then becomes > Ben> how would you distinguish between the hypothesis of a hidden > Ben> noncomputational source, and a hidden more-powerful-computer > Ben> source? Again, you need to make this distinction using a > Ben> finite set of finite-precision observations.... And so my > Ben> argument then applies again to this additional set of > Ben> observations....<br> <br>So I don't see that you have really > Ben> provided a counterexample. However, I can see the value of > Ben> formalizing my argument mathematically so as to avoid the > Ben> appearance of such loopholes...<br><br>ben g<br><br><div > Ben> class="gmail_quote"> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Eric Baum > Ben> <span dir="ltr"><<a > Ben> href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a>></span> > Ben> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px > Ben> solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; > Ben> padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d"><br> >> You have > Ben> not convinced me that you can do anything a computer can't > Ben> do.<br> >> And, using language or math, you never will -- > Ben> because any finite set of symbols<br> >> you can utter, > Ben> could also be uttered by some computational system.<br> >> > Ben> -- Ben G<br> <br> </div>I have the sense that this argument is > Ben> not air tight, because I can<br> imagine a zero-knowledge proof > Ben> that you can do something a computer<br> can't do.<br> <br> > Ben> Any finite set of symbols you utter *could*, of course, be > Ben> utterable by<br> some computational system, but if they are > Ben> generated in response to<br> queries that are not known in > Ben> advance, it might be arbitrarily unlikely<br> that they *would* > Ben> be uttered by any particular computational system.<br> <br> For > Ben> example, to make this concrete and airtight, I can add a time > Ben> element.<br> Say I compute offline the answers to a large number > Ben> of<br> problems that, if one were to solve them with a > Ben> computation,<br> provably could only be solved by extremely long > Ben> sequential<br> computations, each longer than any sequential > Ben> computation<br> that a computer that could<br> possibly be built > Ben> out of the matter in your brain could compute in an hour,<br> and > Ben> I present you these problems and you answer 10000 of them in > Ben> half<br> an hour. At this point, I am going, I think, to be > Ben> pursuaded that you<br> are doing something that can not be > Ben> captured by a Turing machine.<br> <br> Not that I believe, of > Ben> course, that you can do anything a computer<br> can't > Ben> do. I'm just saying, the above argument is not a proof > Ben> that,<br> if you could, it could not be demonstrated.<br> > Ben> <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br> <br> > Ben> -------------------------------------------<br> agi<br> Archives: > Ben> <a href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now"; > Ben> target="_blank">https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > </a><br> > Ben> RSS Feed: <a > Ben> href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/"; > Ben> target="_blank">https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > </a><br> > Ben> Modify Your Subscription: <a > Ben> href="https://www.listbox.com/member/?&"; > Ben> target="_blank">https://www.listbox.com/member/?&</a><br> > Ben> Powered by Listbox: <a href="http://www.listbox.com"; > Ben> target="_blank">http://www.listbox.com</a><br> > Ben> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Ben > Ben> Goertzel, PhD<br>CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC<br>Director > Ben> of Research, SIAI<br><a > Ben> href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a><br><br>"A > Ben> human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, > Ben> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, > Ben> balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, > Ben> take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, > Ben> analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a > Ben> tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is > Ben> for insects." -- Robert Heinlein<br> <br><br> <div > Ben> style="padding:0 4px 4px 4px;background-color:#fff;clear:both" > Ben> bgcolor="#ffffff"> <hr> > > Ben> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" > Ben> style="background-color:#fff" bgcolor="#ffffff"> <tr> <td > Ben> padding="4px"> <font color="black" size="1" face="helvetica, > Ben> sans-serif;"> <strong>agi</strong> | <a > Ben> style="text-decoration:none;color:#669933;border-bottom: 1px > Ben> solid #444444" > Ben> href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now"; title="Go > Ben> to archives for agi">Archives</a> <a border="0" > Ben> style="text-decoration:none;color:#669933" > Ben> href="https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/"; title="RSS > Ben> feed for agi"><img border=0 > Ben> src="https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg";></a> | > Ben> <a style="text-decoration:none;color:#669933;border-bottom: 1px > Ben> solid #444444" > Ben> href="https://www.listbox.com/member/?&"; > Ben> title="">Modify</a> Your Subscription<td valign="top" > Ben> align="right"><a style="border-bottom:none;" > Ben> href="http://www.listbox.com";> <img > Ben> src="https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.jpg"; > Ben> title="Powered by Listbox" border="0" /></a></td> > > Ben> </font> </td> </tr> </table> </div> > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
![https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg"](https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg"){kind=link}
![https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.jpg"](https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.jpg"){kind=link}