On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 5:24 AM Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > All this means that anything that can be routinized eventually does > become routinized. >
Yes, and if something is too complex to be routinized then break it up into several smaller simpler parts, and if those parts are still too complex then break them up into sub-parts. Keep that up and eventually you'll come to a part that can change in only one way, a 1 changing into a 0 for example, and you can't get any simpler than that. *>Computers may get there one day, and on that day my job will be in > jeopardy, * > And a computer can already beat you and every other human at Jeopardy!. *> but right now they are not even in the ballpark, not a million miles > away from of being able to program themselves.* > Take a look at AlphaZero, this program was not taught by humans , it taught itself and learned in 24 hours to play 3 entirely different games at a superhuman level, GO, Chess and Shogi ( a very complex game popular in Japan) . All it was told was the basic rules of the games and told to figure out a way to win for itself, and it certainly did. One human Grand-master said it played like " a superior alien species" and another said it showed "profound positional understanding". I just don't see how we can be very far away from finding the seed algorithm that would allow computers to learn how to learn anything, because we already have a upper limit on how big that algorithm must be, and it's not very big. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to just 750 meg, and that's enough assembly instructions to make not just a brain and all its wiring but a entire human baby. So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron up this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion times". And there is a huge amount of redundancy in the human genome so if you used a file compression program like ZIP on that 750 meg you could easily put the entire thing on a CD, not a DVD not a Blu ray just a old fashioned steam powered vanilla CD, and you'd still have room for a few dozen lady Gaga songs. And the thing I'm talking about, the seed learning algorithm for intelligence, must be vastly smaller than that, and that's the thing that let Einstein go from knowing precisely nothing in 1879 to becoming the first person to know General Relativity in 1915. >> Rather than a explanation I will give an example of a qualia generating >> program because I like concrete examples. For the pain qualia write a >> subroutine >> such that the closer the number in the X register comes to the integer P >> the more computational resources will be devoted to changing that number, >> and if it ever actually equals P then the program should stop doing >> everything else and do nothing but try to change that number to something >> far enough away from P until it's no longer an urgent matter and the >> program can again do things that have nothing to do with P. >> > > *> Haha! That is hilarious. I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg, or your > own leg.* > I was not, but I did wonder if you were pulling my leg when you said "plants and rocks and stars and atoms" might be conscious. > > If you seriously believe this would cause a computer pain, would it not > be unethical to write it? > I can't answer that in absolute terms because ethical questions don't have objective answers, but I will say it's not more unethical than throwing a live lobster into boiling water to cook it. And Bruno would say it makes no difference if you write the program and run it on a computer or not because it already exists in Plato's magical mystery heaven > *Of course there is a logical reason to assume another person is > conscious - the alternative really is solipsism.* > And what logical reason do you have that solipsism is untrue? > >*And there are sound reasons for doubting the consciousness of computers > -* > Name one of them that could not also be used to doubt the consciousness of your fellow human beings. I can't think of one unless I adopt the axiom that squishiness implies consciousness and I prefer the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness. > *> I began by arguing that I am not forced into solipsism by denying the > intelligent behaviour test for consciousness.* > If you deny that then solipsism is the only logical conclusion. > > *Of course I can't prove computers aren't sentient any more than you > can prove they are. What I am saying is that we definitely know humans are > conscious,* > What's with this "we" business? I definitely know that I am conscious and I don't need any axioms or even logic to know it, I know it from direct experience. But as for you, well ..., I strongly suspect you're conscious too because I strongly suspect my axiom is true but I can't prove it and never will. > > *and that potentially by exploring the interaction between induced > brain states and self-reported experiences* [...] > What logical reason is there to believe a human's "self-reported experiences" but disbelieve a computer's "self-reported experiences"? >>If everything is conscious then the word doesn't mean much and I don't >> have to explain why some things are conscious and some things are not. >> > > *>If everything is matter, the word still means something doesn't it? * > No because if you sent me a note saying "Swiftly is made of matter" it would contain no information, not one bit, because Shannon tells us information is a measure of surprise and I already knew that the adverb "swiftly" is something and that everything is made of matter. >>But I am certain in everyday life NOBODY rejects the behavioral test for >> consciousness, even professional philosophers don't reject it except when >> they're teaching a class of freshmen and trying to sound provocative. >> > > >*Absurd. I told you my criterion as an everyday person.* > Perhaps my mail server is screwed up because I certainly didn't see such a everyday criteria, please repeat it. > *> And the majority of people don't think their smartphones are conscious, > despite their degree of "intelligence". (Quotation marks mean their > intelligent behaviour is routinised and demonstrably does not encompass > actual comprehension).* > Would you also say the freshmen students in the advanced physics course were "intelligent" beings? John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
