On 2/22/2018 7:06 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>

    On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal
    <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

    On 19 Feb 2018, at 21:27, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
    <everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:



        On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell
        <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com
        <mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@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?

        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?

        This is the question I pose.

    The mechanist answer to this is “yes”. The more you have neurons,
    the less conscious you are. The brain is a filter of the
    (arithmetical) information. I will not insist now, as it is
    shocking and quite counter-intuitive, but somehow, the Löbian
    machine, which is more complex than the usual universal machine
    (she knows that she is universal) is more deluded, it soul is
    already”falling”, and it is less conscious. The math explains why
    the machine will tend to believe the contrary, and why nature
    benefits of that ignorance in some way. Now, the hidden
    information is not necessarily related to the hidden layers of a
    neural network, at least not at first sight. The hiding is more
    logical/modal, at a deeper level, independent of the
    implementations used in the computation.

    --------
    In some ways, I think you are correct. One of the brain's
    functions is to throw out information that it decides is
    irrelevant or unimportant from it's own peculiar Darwinian
    perspective. It is a filter, and necessary one, in order to
    survive and thrive within the sensorial onslaught of reality.
    Sometimes less is more.
    However though perhaps a spider may exist in a less filtered
    internal state of being than a mouse, I don't see how it is more
    conscious. Is an amoeba even more conscious then than a spider. Is
    the simplest most elementary particle the most conscious entity of
    all?

    Now, I grant that consciousness & self-awareness may themselves be
    an elaborate and necessary, schism & illusion arising from and
    within the labrynthian neural networks of our brains and resulting
    in our hermetic selves being cutoff by the very act of self
    identification from the wellspring of a much vaster, deeper
    ineffable being. So in this particular sense the very emergence of
    self identification becomes a veil that cuts us off from direct
    experience. We exist in reified mental constructs, inside a
    filtered mind-generated virtual reality. We don't see, hear,
    touch, smell or taste directly; instead we experience that which
    our mind serves up to us.


Then you're granting what nobody asked for.

Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to