On 2/19/2018 12:27 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell<goldenfiel...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:00:24 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 2/18/2018 6:26 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Computers such as AlphaGo have complex algorithms for taking the rules of a game like chess and running through long Markov chains of game events to increase their data base for playing the game. There is not really anything about "knowing something" going on here. There is a lot of hype over AI these days, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million times faster than neurons? Presently neurons have an advantage in connection density and power dissipation; but I see no reason they can hold that advantage. Brent I think it may come down to computers that obey the Church-Turing thesis, which is finite and bounded. Hofstadter's book Godel Escher Bach has a chapter Bloop, Floop, Gloop where the Bloop means bounded loop or a halting program on a Turing machine. Biology however is not Bloop, but is rather a web of processors that are more Floop, or free loop. The busy beaver algorithm is such a case, which grows in complexity with each step. The computation of many fractals is this as well, where the Mandelbrot set with each iteration on a certain scale needs refinement to another floating point precision and thus grows in huge complexity. These of course in practice halting because the programmer puts in by hand a stop. These are recursively enumerable, and their complement in a set theoretic sense are Godel loops or Gloop. For machines to have properties at least parallel to conscious behavior we really have to be running in at least Floop and maybe into Gloop. LC Not sure if this has been touched on in this thread but it seems to me that the emergent phenomenon of both self-awareness and consciousness depend on information hiding in some fundamental way. Both our self awareness and our conscious minds, which from our incomplete perspective seem to be innate and ever present (at least when we are awake) are themselves the emergent outcomes of a vast amount of neural networked activities that is exquisitely hidden from us. We are unaware of the Genesis of our own awareness. Evidence from MRI scans supports this conclusion that before we are aware of being aware of some objectively measurable external event, or before we experience having a thought, that the almost one hundred billion neurons crammed into our highly folded cortexual pizza pie stuffed inside our skulls have been very busy and chatty indeed. As the MRI scans indicate. We are aware of being aware and we experience conscious existence, but the process by which both our conscious experience and our own awareness of being arises within our minds is largely hidden from us. I think it is a fair and reasonable question to ask: Is information hiding a necessary an integral aspect of processes through which self-awareness and consciousness arise? I think information hiding is looking at it the wrong way around. It would take more layers of neurons to record and interpret the neurons responsible for your thoughts...a total waste from an evolutionary viewpoint. Taking my favorite example of designing an AI Mars Rover, one provides for internal monitoring of some systems, e.g. power, temperature, etc. But what would you provide to monitor the computer(s) themselves. In principle you could record every step, but what would you do with it? If you have mulitple computers on board (as is likely) you'd just take one that was doing funny things off line...but you don't have to record everything to identify a computer that's flaky. All you need is some error correction and majority voting. So there's just no practical reason to try to "un-hide" all that information processing at the cost of a lot more information processing. Completely agree with aserting that attempting to record, categorize and make available an exhaustive and fine grained record of the full spectrum of activities, at least in any system that could be considered as being a viable candidate for consciousness or self awareness -- and I suspect we agree on this -- that it is a rather hopeless task, at least in any non trivial large scale system. As a kind of aside, that being said, raw telemetry however, especially numeric metadata, is still valuable for forensic reconstruction of some given scenario based on the ingested stream's trail of time graphed signals recorded and reposited in the telemetry data store. Say for example when all hell breaks loose and all the alarming starts going off. I also agree that quorum based algorithms are an efficient and especially when they have a large enough number of semi-independent nodes being involved in the active current quorum network it can be both an efficient and also pretty robust decisional system that is far superior to the heuristic stacks of the 1980s style top down expert system approach to the hard problem of AI (which suffer from terminal brittleness and an inability to elegantly handle exceptions without resorting to cumbersome ad hoc exception lists that may or also may not provide effective coverage. The manner in which I was attempting to convey the concept of information hiding however is not so much in the sense of lossy compression or the many other actions like say branch pruning, rollups etc. that deal with the very real computational issue imposed by unmanageable workloads, resulting from a geometrically growing data explosion and the all manner of follow on processing artifacts that are themselves the outcome of the algorithmic stream processing activity that is going on at any given moment. I was more intending it being necessary as an enabler of the emergence of non linear processes in which while both the inputs and the final output may both be measurable and hence knowable, but the inner workings remain instead, to some degree hidden. Not in order to overcome and be able to handle an impossible workload, by throwing stuff out, but rather as a kind of firewall that helps the non linearity itself become manifest. I am thinking of information hiding as being a kind of catalyst, metaphorically speaking that helps non linearity to emerge out of a many layered stack of networked processes ingesting and interpreting a raw incoming stream. Perhaps then it would be more accurate to say that information hiding is the means by which non linearity is introduced into the event processing stream In computer science the rather recent emergence of deep mind neural networks that are characterized by having many layers, of which only the input layer and output layer of neurons are directly measurable, while conversely the many other layers that are arrayed in the stack between them remain hidden offers some intriguing parallels that also seem to indicate a critical role for information hiding. The Google deep mind machine learned neural networks for image processing, for example, have 10 to 30 (or by now perhaps even more) stacked layers of artificial neurons, most of which are hidden. Because of the non-linearity of the processes in play within these artificial deep stacks of layered artificial neurons it is difficult to really know in any definitive manner exactly what is going on. The outcomes from experimenting on the statistically trained (or in the vernacular, machine learned) models, by for example tweaking training parameters to experimentally see how doing so effects the resulting outcomes and by also subsequently forensically analyzing any generated logs & other telemetry are often surprisingly beautiful dreamscapes that are not reducible to a series of algorithmic steps applied by the many hidden layers to whatever input signals that have been fed to the input layer of neurons. It seems to me that the emergence of consciousness & self awareness as well is exquisitely nonlinear in nature. And that this outcome characterized by being non-linear, itself depends on information hiding in order to be able to operate. Each successive layer in the stack is mostly unaware of the vast array of activities occurring on the layers beneath it... or above it for that matter. Would consciousness or self awareness even be possible without introducing information hiding in the deep stack through which these phenomena emerge? Personally I do not think we could be conscious or self aware without the multiple degrees of non-linearity introduced into the sensorial signal + triggered memory recall processing stream by the fire wall of information hiding. It is by hiding away, by far most of the processing stack from us that we experience this seemingly magical state of being. We emerge in a non linear manner from a hidden world that we are (for the most part) blithely unaware of. The fact that a very similar kind of process seems to be taking place in these stacked layers of artificial neurons most of which are hidden supports this thesis. Is information hiding in fact, necessary to the emergence of self-awareness & consciousness? It's necessary for the "illusion of free will", and under mining that "illusion" would also undermine the idea of self. My idea is that awareness, consciousness, and self-awareness are just aspects of models of the world we make most of which are not conscious but a few of which our brain puts into a coherent story (in language or images) for memory and future reference. We can't remember everything and even if we did we couldn't access it in reasonable times. So learning requires that the past experience be summarized some stories, some of which is fabricated by making it coherent with other past stories. That's the reason the more an event is recalled by a witness the more coherent but the less veridical it becomes. I also like the model of consciousness as the narrator of our minds consensus as well, which is what becomes our story. We believe in ourselves as being the narrator and mostly never ask what is it that our voice within is the narrator of? We gloss over the incredible journey of dynamically interleaved and sequenced neural activities taking place in our brains that gives rise to our minds story, as a record of our neural consensus and as an emergence of the most prominent neural synchronized firing network at any given monent. Apparently, from what I've read there is a fairly large number of seemingly competing firing networks going on within our brains all the time, each of which is trying to recruit neurons to it and gain the momentum to achieve conscious prominence. We are our own talking heads :)And we also for the most part blissfully ignore just how noisy and dare I say argumentative our brains are.-Chris Brent "The world is made of stories, not atoms." --- Muriel Rukeyser -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.