https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/nobel-laureate-foresees-mind-expanding-future-physics
jason, and all- Tell me what you think of Nobelist, Frank Wilzscheks' comments, on the Next 100 years in Physics, particularly concerning his views on Quantum A.I. ? Notably, that this will be a hugely, greater mind, even beyond, AI, and that, if I understood him correctly, a mind that travel tween past and present and change things. Note! I may be dreadfully misunderstanding Wilsczek, because this is way above my intellectual pay grade. Can someone interpret all this for me, from his Brown University speech?? >From the knee side of the S curve, Mitch P.s. Jason, hows the book coming?? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> To: Everything List <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, May 6, 2015 02:50 PM Subject: Re: My comments on "The Movie Graph Argument Revisited" by Russell Standish <div id="AOLMsgPart_2_cb2113a3-1a9b-48bd-83b1-9ea67b8b6272"> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"> <div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 PM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>></span> wrote: <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote> <div> Russell Standish wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mgaRevisted.pdf";>http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mgaRevisted.pdf</a> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > The Movie Graph Argument seeks to parlay this into an absurdity, where there > is no active physical difference between a conscious computation, and the > mindless replaying of a recording. </blockquote> It seems to me that the first thing to do when starting a Reductio ad absurdum proof is to make sure the conclusion really is absurd, and this one isn't </div> </blockquote> It may not be absurd, but its counter to the assumptions of the experiment, that consciousness is the result of a computation. A recording may be stored statically on a hard drive or other medium, it is not a computation. Nor is it a computation if its smeared out over the dimension of time, which is itself static in the relativistic sense of block time. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <div> If 2 identical computers are running the same AI program computationalism says there is only one conscious being. If one of the 2 computers is destroyed computationalism says there is no subjective difference and nobody died. Time is only meaningful in its relationship to something else so if the computer is stopped for a billion years and then started up again there is no subjective difference. If the computer is reset and the same AI program is run again computationalism says there is no subjective difference. If the exact same program is rerun on the computer a trillion times computationalism says there is still only one conscious experience, that is to say subjectively things would be exactly the same if it had been run only one time. When a recording of consciousness is played back does the consciousness exist during the playback or just when the computer was actually making calculations? If computationalism is true, and I think it is, then the answer to that question doesn't make any subjective difference whatsoever. </div> What about intelligence, when somebody in the 21th century reads what Newton accomplished did the intelligence occur in the 17th century or the 21th? Operationally it makes no difference. Does this mean that consciousness and intelligence exists outside the normal bounds of space and time? In a way it sorta does which is why I'm reluctant to say physics is definitely more fundamental than mathematics; but in another way it sorta doesn't because the entire argument hinges on the existence of a computer that operates according to the laws of physics, which is why I'm reluctant to say mathematics is definitely more fundamental than physics. I just don't know. . <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > One of the consequences of the universal dovetailer argument is that you > cannot tell which computer program is you. </blockquote> <p>Well that sure didn't take long, already on page 1 we run into one of those damn ambiguous personal pronouns. And in your scenario there is only one serial program and it is running the entire multiverse so it would be very easy indeed to say what program is "you" assuming that personal pronoun means anything.</p> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > For every program that instantiates your current conscious state, there are > an infinite number of possible continuations of that program, corresponding > to different possible futures. This leads to an irreduciable indeterminism </blockquote> <p>There is nothing new in this, Turing proved 80 years ago that in general the behavior of even very simple programs can not be predicted, if you want to know what it will do all you can do is watch. And Og the caveman discovered that people don't always know what they will see next so I see no reason for a new homemade acronym like "FPI". </p> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > even an omniscient god cannot know what you will experience next. </blockquote> <p>Because even a omniscient god cannot answer a question that isn’t really a question but is gibberish.</p> </div> </blockquote> I thought you were a believer in the logical possibility of fundamental randomness. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > the Church-Turing thesis implies that it doesn’t matter what physical > computer the dovetailer is run on. </blockquote> <p>I'm glad you said "physical", the dovetailer could be made many different ways but however its made as far as we know it must be constructed of matter and it must operate according to the laws of physics.</p> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> >The wrinkle is to suppose that the universe doesn’t have sufficient resources >to run a universal dovetailer. Whilst a universal dovetailer can be coded and >run on the physical computers we have today, in practice only a short initial >portion of the UD can be run. What if the universe goes into a heat death >before any conscious program is started? To distinguish between these cases, >Marchal calls a universe capable of running a universal dovetailer fully a >robust universe. </blockquote> So at the very start you've got to assume the existence of a physical universe and a very special type of physical universe. Does this mean physics is more fundamental than mathematics? </div> </blockquote> This is an intermediate step. The next step dispenses with the need for a physically concrete Dovetailer implementation. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > we can, for the purposes of this argument, consider robust universes to be > ones that can run enough of the universal dovetailer for programs > instantiating all possible human experiences of consciousnesses within a > human life time be executed. This is still an immense universe, but no longer > an infinite one. </blockquote> You said the dovetailer "leads to an irreduciable indeterminism", but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could not of course predict what "you" will see next because in this context that personal pronoun has no meaning, it would be like asking what klogknee will fluxanate next. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > Since all our possibe experiences will be instantiated, and observed, our > phenomenal physics depends only on the properties of the universal machine, > not on any underlying physical sustrate. </blockquote> But there is one physical substrate that is still of critical importance, the substrate out of which your dovetailer machine is built because nobody knows how to make a Turing Machine or a computer or how to make one single calculation without using matter that operates according to the laws of physics. Maybe there is some other way to do it but if there is nobody knows what it is. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > it is observed that different brain states invariably correspond to different > conscious experiences. </blockquote> And different brain states lead to different physical behavior. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > Now consider the scenario of a class of school children, one of whom is > named Alice, and another Bob. Does Alice’s consciousness supervene on the > class? Well, yes, as we observe that any change in Alice’s consciousness > must correspond to a physical change in the classroom, concentrated in > Alice’s brain. </blockquote> Or to say the same thing more simply, the Turing Test (a behavioral test) works for both intelligence and consciousness. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > But we can ask a slight different question — does consciousness supervene on > the class. In this case, we’d have to answer no, because both Alice’s > conscious states and Bob’s, not to mention the teacher’s and other students > are all present in the class. A difference in conscious state does not > correspond to a physical difference. </blockquote> I have no idea what you're talking about here, if one person effects the class the other class members will effect it too. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > We can express the same conundrum using the speech case, exploiting the > so-called “cocktail party” effect. Alice says “hello”, and Bob says “hi” > simultaneously — but which word we hear depends on who we’re actively > listening to. </blockquote> <p>And the programming of the dovetailer determines who we're actively listening to. I really don't see what you're drivin at. </p> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > The words no longer supervene on the air molecules, but on the state of the > listener. </blockquote> You've lost me. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > if program A executes the ”or” instruction on registers x and y, and B > executes the ”and” instruction. If it so happens that both x and y both > contain the same value (both true or both false), then the resultant machine > state is identical with each program. Yet the two programs are quite > different, as if the two registers had different values, the resulting > machine state would be quite different. We call this “if it had been > different” a counterfactual. </blockquote> If quantum mechanics has taught us anything it's that counterfactuals are a intellectual dead end, you can't make a measurement you didn't make. You can choose to measure the position of a particle with as much accuracy as you want but if you do you will have little idea what its momentum would be and it would be pointless to speculate what the momentum value would have been if you had chosen to measure that instead of position. </div> </blockquote> Is Newcomb's paradox meaningless because it concerns counterfactuals? <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > In this case, programs A and B are not counterfactually equivalent. It seems > plausible that counterfactual inequivalence is needed as part of the > definition of what could differ between computations supporting different > conscious experiences. </blockquote> That doesn't seem the least bit plausible to me, as long as the inputs are both true (or both false) then I don't see how on earth it could make any difference, the "and" instruction produces the same result as the "or" instruction and the machine is in the identical state. </div> </blockquote> Here's an example: Ask a man to compute 2 + 3, and ask a calculator to compute 2 + 3. They both have the same output: 5, but very different intermediate conscious states, <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> Therefore if computationalism is true then your above statement is more than just implausible it is flat out wrong. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > if counterfactual situations are physically realised somewhere in the > multiverse, then [...] </blockquote> <div> Then if things were different then things would be different. If one input were 0 and the other 1 then there would be a difference between that universe and the universe where both inputs were 0 or both 1 and so the universe would split and the consciousness of the AI program would be different too so it also would split. </div> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > This is supported by the intuition that a mere playback of a recording of a > conscious machine (eg reanimating a dead brain by passing recorded EEG > sgnals through the neurons) is not sufficient to instantiate a > consciousness. </blockquote> That isn't my intuition! Audio and video can be recorded and I see no reason why in theory consciousness couldn't be recorded too, </div> </blockquote> Because a recording isn't a computation, and computationalism was assumed. It's the difference between Schmidhuber's program that is an infinite loop incrementing and printing i, and Bruno's UDA which treats each i as a program, and executes it as such. Jason <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> as I explained above if computationalism is true things like that must be possible, after all... that's what computationalism means. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > The idea is that the conscious computation is implemented as a graph (or > network) of stateful objects (eg abstract neurons) embedded in a glass plate. > This allows a movie camera to record a movie of the operation of the > artificial brain. Then by parts, he severs some of the network links between > neurons, but by projecting the movie back onto the network, is able to excite > those neurons as though they were still connected. </blockquote> But the neurons still are connected just in a more roundabout way, the excitation signal from neuron X is recorded on film and then sent to neuron Y my means of the projector. I really don't see the point of this thought experiment. <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> > The requirement that the computations be counterfactually correct means two > distinct conscious experiences may produce the same sequence of machine > states, but they must differ in their behaviour for some counterfactual > machine state. </blockquote> That certainly isn't computationalism and it isn't science either because science deals in the experiments you made not the experiments you didn't make. John K Clark <span class="aolmail_HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p> </p></font></span> </div> <span class="aolmail_HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> <p></p> -- 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 <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. To post to this group, send email to <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. Visit this group at <a target="_blank" href="http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list</a>. For more options, visit <a target="_blank" href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>. </font></span> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <p></p> -- 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 <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. To post to this group, send email to <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. Visit this group at <a target="_blank" href="http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list</a>. For more options, visit <a target="_blank" href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>. </div> </div> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
