On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:37:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 2/13/2013 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:58:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>> *Wouldn�t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than 
>> Artificial Intelligence?*
>>
>> Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a 
>> hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an �artificial 
>> hurricane�. If we modeled any physical substance, force, or field, we 
>> would similarly say that we had simulated hydrogen or gravity or 
>> electromagnetism, not that we had created artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc.
>>
>>
>> No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or other 
>> machine which interacts with the real world, whereas a simulate AI or 
>> hurricane acts within a simulated world.
>>  
>
> AI doesn't need to interact with the real world though. It makes no 
> difference to the AI whether its environment is real or simulated. Just 
> because we can attach a robot to a simulation doesn't change it into an 
> experience of a real world.
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
>     I think that you might be making a huge fuss over a difference that 
> does not always make a difference between a public world and a private 
> world! IMHO, that makes the 'real' physical world "Real" is that we can all 
> agree on its properties (subject to some constraints that matter). Many can 
> point at the tree over there and agree on its height and whether or not it 
> is a deciduous variety.
>

Why does our agreement mean on something's properties mean anything other 
than that though? We are people living at the same time with human sized 
bodies, so it would make sense that we would agree on almost everything 
that involve our bodies. You can have a dream with other characters in the 
dream who point to your dream tree and agree on its characteristics, but 
upon waking, you are re-oriented to a more real, more tangibly public world 
with longer and more stable histories. These qualities are only significant 
in comparison to the dream though. If you can't remember your waking life, 
then the dream is real to you, and to the universe through you.


>
>   
>  
>>  
>>
>> By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete notion of 
>> natural vs man-made as categories of origin. 
>>
>>
>> Why is the distinction between the natural intelligence of a child and 
>> the artificial intelligence of a Mars rover obsolete?� The latter is one 
>> we create by art, the other is created by nature.
>>  
>
> Because we understand now that we are nature and nature is us.
>
>
>     I disagree! We can fool ourselves into thinking that we "understand' 
> but what we can do is, at best, form testable explanations of stuff... We 
> are fallible!
>

I agree, but I don't see how that applies to us being nature. What would it 
mean to be unnatural? How would an unnatural being find themselves in a 
natural world?
 

>
>  We can certainly use the term informally to clarify what we are 
> referring to, like we might call someone a plumber because it helps us 
> communicate who we are talking about, but anyone who does plumbing can be a 
> plumber. It isn't an ontological distinction. Nature creates our capacity 
> to create art, and we use that capacity to shape nature in return.
>  
>
>     I agree! I think it is that aspect of Nature that can "throw itself 
> into its choice", as Satre mused, that is making the computationalists 
> crazy. I got no problem with it as I embrace non-well foundedness.
>

Cool, yeah I mean it could be said that aspect is defines nature?
 

>
> "L'homme est d'abord ce qui se jette vers un avenir, et ce qui est 
> conscient de se projeter dans l'avenir."/ ~ Jean Paul Satre
>
>   
>  
>>  
>> If we used simulated instead, the measure of intelligence would be framed 
>> more modestly as the degree to which a system meets our expectations (or 
>> what we think or assume are our expectations). Rather than assuming a 
>> universal index of intelligent qualities which is independent from our own 
>> human qualities, 
>>
>>
>> But if we measure intelligence strictly relative to human intelligence
>>
>
> I think that it is a misconception to imagine that we have access to any 
> other measure.
>  
>
>     Yeah!
>
>   
>  
>>  we will be saying that visual pattern recognition is intelligence but 
>> solving Navier-Stokes equations is not.
>>
>
> Why, equations are written by intelligent humans?
>  
>
>     People are confounded by computational intractability and eagerly spin 
> tales of hypercomputers and other perpetual motion machines.
>

Complexity seems to be the only abstract principle that the Western-OMMM 
orientation respects.
 

>
>   
>  
>> � This is the anthropocentrism that continually demotes whatever 
>> computers can do as "not really intelligent" even when it was regarded a 
>> the apothesis of intelligence *before* computers could� do it.
>>  
>
> If I had a camera with higher resolution than a human eye, that doesn't 
> mean that I can replace my eyes with those cameras. Computers can still be 
> exemplary at computation without being deemed literally intelligent. A 
> planetarium's star projector can be as accurate as any telescope and still 
> be understood not to be projecting literal galaxies and stars into the 
> ceiling of the observatory.
>  
>  
>>  
>> we could evaluate the success of a particular Turing emulation purely on 
>> its merits as a convincing reflection of intelligence 
>>
>>
>> But there is no one-dimensional measure of intelligence - it's just 
>> competence in many domains.
>>  
>
> Competence in many domains is fine. I'm saying that the competence relates 
> to how well it reflects or amplifies existing intelligence, not that it 
> actually is itself intelligent.
>  
>  
>>  
>> rather than presuming to have replicated an organic conscious experience 
>> mechanically.
>>
>>
>> I don't think that's a presumption.� It's an inference from the 
>> incoherence of the idea of a philosophical zombie.
>>  
>
> The idea of a philosophical zombie is a misconception based on some 
> assumptions about matter and function which I clearly understand to be 
> untrue. A sociopath is already a philosophical zombie as far as emotional 
> intelligence is concerned. Someone with blindsight is a philosophical 
> zombie as far as visual perception is concerned. Someone who is 
> sleepwalking is a p-zombie as far as bipedal locomotion is concerned. The 
> concept is bogus.
>  
>
>     I 100% concur!
>

Cool! It's so strange because for almost everything else I think that 
Chalmers is The Man, but p-zombies are the concept of this that most people 
seem to grab on to, other than the Hard Problem.


>   
>  
>>  
>>
>> The cost of losing the promise of imminently mastering awareness would, I 
>> think, be outweighed by the gain of a more scientifically circumspect 
>> approach. Putting the Promethean dream on hold, we could guard against the 
>> shadow of its confirmation bias. My concern is that without such a 
>> precaution, the promise of machine intelligence as a stage 1 simulacrum (a 
>> faithful copy of an original, in Baudrillard�s 
>> terms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>), 
>> will be diluted to a stage 3 simulacrum (a copy that masks the absence of a 
>> profound reality, where the simulacrum pretends to be a faithful copy.) 
>> --�
>>
>>
>> The assumption that there is a 'profound reality' is what Stathis showed 
>> to be 'magic'.
>>  
>
> Baudrillard is not talking about consciousness in particular, only the sum 
> of whatever is in the original which is not accessible in the copy. His 
> phrase 'profound reality' is apt though. If you don't experience a profound 
> reality, then you might be a p-zombie already.
>
>  
>  
>     Right!
>

Cool. I've known about the Baudrillard stuff for a long time, but today was 
the first time I realized how it applies to comp and what it makes me 
motivated to try to explain it. Cos it isn't just a misrepresentation of 
consciousness, it actively presents itself as containing proof that it is 
not a misrepresentation. 

Craig


> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to