Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 2/22/2018 7:06 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Sent from Yahoo Mail on 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell <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. Whether we ask for it or not changes little in how our sense of self emerges from within. We do not control the process, we are the process. So not sure what you're saying. -Chris 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.