Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues. Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words 'Intellectual Property'? (that's a rhetorical question, just in case there was any doubt!) I'd like to suggest that the COMP=false thread be considered a completely mis-placed, undebatable and dead topic on the AGI list. That'd be great. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion on this list. However, I don't think discussions of the form I have all the answers, but they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha are particularly useful. So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has probably met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics IP. However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so off-topic or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. -- Ben On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:18 AM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues. Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words 'Intellectual Property'? (that's a rhetorical question, just in case there was any doubt!) I'd like to suggest that the COMP=false thread be considered a completely mis-placed, undebatable and dead topic on the AGI list. Maybe people who like Chinese Rooms will sign up for the new COMP=false list... -dave -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion on this list. However, I don't think discussions of the form I have all the answers, but they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha are particularly useful. So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has probably met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics IP. However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so off-topic or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. -- Ben If someone doesn't want to get into a conversation with Colin about whatever it is that he is saying, then they should just exercise some self-control and refrain from doing so. I think Colin's ideas are pretty far out there. But that does not mean that he has never said anything that might be useful. My offbeat topic, that I believe that the Lord may have given me some direction about a novel approach to logical satisfiability that I am working on, but I don't want to discuss the details about the algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, was never intended to be a discussion about the theory itself. I wanted to have a discussion about whether or not a good SAT solution would have a significant influence on AGI, and whether or not the unlikely discovery of an unexpected breakthrough on SAT would serve as rational evidence in support of the theory that the Lord helped me with the theory. Although I am skeptical about what I think Colin is claiming, there is an obvious parallel between his case and mine. There are relevant issues which he wants to discuss even though his central claim seems to private, and these relevant issues may be interesting. Colin's unusual reference to some solid path which cannot be yet discussed is annoying partly because it so obviously unfounded. If he had the proof (or a method), then why isn't he writing it up (or working it out). A similar argument was made against me by the way, but the difference was that I never said that I had the proof or method. (I did say that you should get used to a polynomial time solution to SAT but I never said that I had a working algorithm.) My point is that even though people may annoy you with what seems like unsubstantiated claims, that does not disqualify everything they have said. That rule could so easily be applied to anyone who posts on that list. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues. Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words 'Intellectual Property'? (that's a rhetorical question, just in case there was any doubt!) I'd like to suggest that the COMP=false thread be considered a completely mis-placed, undebatable and dead topic on the AGI list. Maybe people who like Chinese Rooms will sign up for the new COMP=false list... -dave --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
but I don't want to discuss the details about the algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, Hearing this makes my teeth gnash. GO AND IMPLEMENT THEM. THEN TELL US On 10/15/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Hart wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues. Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words 'Intellectual Property'? (that's a rhetorical question, just in case there was any doubt!) I'd like to suggest that the COMP=false thread be considered a completely mis-placed, undebatable and dead topic on the AGI list. Maybe people who like Chinese Rooms will sign up for the new COMP=false list... -dave Hi, The attendees here would like to be involved in the parenthood of real AGI, yes? I am being rather forthright in scientifically suggesting an approach to that outcome focussed entirely on COMP may not achieve that goal, and that a diversity of views is needed...and I have a non-COMP approach which is possibly a way to AGI. I know may claims have not been scientifically backed up. I will fix that. The fact is - COMP has already been refuted twice in print. I will be adding 2 more refutations. That is already 2 counts that make term COMP-AGI an oxymoron. COMP was always a conjecture and has never been proven. The only recent assessment in the literature ends with the words Computationalism is dead. Basic common sense dictates that if you are really keen on real AGI that is scientifically viable, then a diversity of approaches is advisable. According to Ben that seems to be the way of the group as a whole. I take some comfort from this. The necessary diversity requires all manner of multidisciplinary scientists become interested and contribute. I intend to be one of those. So having 'shaken the tree' I'll leave it at that for now. I'll come back with publications to discuss and we can pick up the science of AGI from there. The first paper will be an objective test for P-consciousness in an artificial agent. A test I hope everyone's AGI candidates will be subjected toso, back to work for me. enjoy. regards Colin Hales *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription[Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a patent in progress. Yes, I know it's only my claim at the moment...but it's behind why I believe the links to machine consciousness are not optional, despite the cultural state/history of the field at the moment being less than perfect and folks cautiously sidling around consciousness like it was bomb under their budgets. Colin, I read your paper in publication that you were so kind to send me. For those who have not seen it, it is a well written, comprehensive survey of research in machine consciousness. It does not take a position on whether consciousness plays an essential role in AGI. (I understand that taking a controversial position probably would have resulted in rejection). With regard to COMP, I assume you define COMP to be the position that everything the mind does is, in principle, computable. If I understand your position, consciousness does play a critical role in AGI. However, we don't know what it is. Therefore we need to find out by using scientific research, then duplicate that process (if possible) in a machine before it can achieve AGI. Here and in your paper, you have not defined what consciousness is. Most philosophical arguments can be traced to disagreements about the meanings of words. In your paper you say that consciousness means having phenomenal states, but you don't define what a phenomenal state is. Without a definition, we default to what we think it means. Everybody knows what consciousness is. It is something that all living humans have. We associate consciousness with properties of humans, such as having a name, a face, emotions, the ability to communicate in natural language, the ability to learn, to behave in ways we expect people to behave, to look like a human. Thus, we ascribe partial degrees of consciousness (with appropriate ethical treatment) to animals, video game characters, human shaped robots, and teddy bears. To argue your position, you need to nail down a definition of consciousness. But that is hard. For example, you could define consciousness as having goals. So if a dog wants to go for a walk, it is conscious. But then a thermostat wants to keep the room at a set temperature, and a linear regression algorithm wants to find the best straight line fit to a set of points. You could define consciousness as the ability to experience pleasure and pain. But then you need a test to distinguish experience from mere reaction, or else I could argue that simple reinforcement learners like http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt experience pain. It boils down to how you define experience. You could define consciousness as being aware of your own thoughts. But again, you must define aware. We distinguish conscious or episodic memories, such as when I recalled yesterday something that happened last month, and unconscious or procedural memories, such as the learned skills in coordinating my leg muscles while walking. We can do studies to show that conscious memories are stored in the hippocampus and higher layers of the cerebral cortex, and unconscious memories are stored in the cerebellum. But that is not really helpful for AGI design. The important distinction is that we remember remembering conscious memories but not unconscious. Reading from conscious memory also writes into it. But I can simulate this process in simple programs, for example, a database that logs transactions. So if you can nail down a definition of consciousness without pointing to a human, I am willing to listen. Otherwise we default to the possibility of building AGI on COMP principles and then ascribing consciousness to it since it behaves just like a human. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: COMP = false? (was Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration)
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a patent in progress. Yes, I know it's only my claim at the moment...but it's behind why I believe the links to machine consciousness are not optional, despite the cultural state/history of the field at the moment being less than perfect and folks cautiously sidling around consciousness like it was bomb under their budgets. Colin, I read your paper in publication that you were so kind to send me. For those who have not seen it, it is a well written, comprehensive survey of research in machine consciousness. It does not take a position on whether consciousness plays an essential role in AGI. (I understand that taking a controversial position probably would have resulted in rejection). With regard to COMP, I assume you define COMP to be the position that everything the mind does is, in principle, computable. If I understand your position, consciousness does play a critical role in AGI. However, we don't know what it is. Therefore we need to find out by using scientific research, then duplicate that process (if possible) in a machine before it can achieve AGI. Here and in your paper, you have not defined what consciousness is. Most philosophical arguments can be traced to disagreements about the meanings of words. In your paper you say that consciousness means having phenomenal states, but you don't define what a phenomenal state is. Without a definition, we default to what we think it means. Everybody knows what consciousness is. It is something that all living humans have. We associate consciousness with properties of humans, such as having a name, a face, emotions, the ability to communicate in natural language, the ability to learn, to behave in ways we expect people to behave, to look like a human. Thus, we ascribe partial degrees of consciousness (with appropriate ethical treatment) to animals, video game characters, human shaped robots, and teddy bears. To argue your position, you need to nail down a definition of consciousness. But that is hard. For example, you could define consciousness as having goals. So if a dog wants to go for a walk, it is conscious. But then a thermostat wants to keep the room at a set temperature, and a linear regression algorithm wants to find the best straight line fit to a set of points. You could define consciousness as the ability to experience pleasure and pain. But then you need a test to distinguish experience from mere reaction, or else I could argue that simple reinforcement learners like http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt experience pain. It boils down to how you define experience. You could define consciousness as being aware of your own thoughts. But again, you must define aware. We distinguish conscious or episodic memories, such as when I recalled yesterday something that happened last month, and unconscious or procedural memories, such as the learned skills in coordinating my leg muscles while walking. We can do studies to show that conscious memories are stored in the hippocampus and higher layers of the cerebral cortex, and unconscious memories are stored in the cerebellum. But that is not really helpful for AGI design. The important distinction is that we remember remembering conscious memories but not unconscious. Reading from conscious memory also writes into it. But I can simulate this process in simple programs, for example, a database that logs transactions. So if you can nail down a definition of consciousness without pointing to a human, I am willing to listen. Otherwise we default to the possibility of building AGI on COMP principles and then ascribing consciousness to it since it behaves just like a human. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am way past merely defining anything. I know what phenomenal fields are constructed of: Virtual Nambu Goldstone Bosons. Brain material is best regarded as a radically anisotropic quasi-fluid undergoing massive phase changes on multiple time scales. The problem is one of thermodynamics, not abstract computation. Duplicating the boson generation inorganically and applying that process to regulatory mechanisms of learning is exactly what I plan for my AGI chips. The virtual particles were named Qualeons by some weird guy here that i was talking to one day. I forgot is name. I better find that out! I digress. :-) It would take 3 PhD dissertations to cover everything from quantum mechanics to psychology. You have to be a polymath. And to see how they explain consciousness you need to internalise 'dual aspect science', from which perspective its all obvious. I have to change the whole of science from single to dual aspect to make it understood.
