Re: AI and social destabilization

[Hans Moravec]

> On 170620, at 6:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Will UBI triumph

Can’t sell if no one is able to buy

-- 
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.

Re: AI and social destabilization

[Hans Moravec]

> On 170620, at 5:57 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> And don't get too comfortable because you're not one of those billionaires.  
> I'd guess that everyone on this list is in the top 0.002% of the world wealth 
> distribution.
> 
> 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.

Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Hans Moravec]

> On 170223, at 3:23 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
>>> John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not to create 
>>> robots that had general intelligence, lest we inadvertently create 
>>> conscious beings to whom we would have ethical obligations.
>> 
>> Bruno: And he warn us that we could become the pet of the machine.
> 
> No.  He warned that we could become slave owners.

The suggestion that we’d become pets was from Marvin Minsky.
I think he saw it as a good thing.


-- 
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.

Re: Metastable metallic hydrogen propulsion

[Hans Moravec]

That's pretty consistent with the first paper, which only claimed a
rocket chamber temperature of ~6,000K for pure metallic hydrogen.
Diluting it with LH2 or water was just an idea to reduce the temperature
to something more manageable, at the cost of specific impulse.

Can't do the calculations myself, but it would surprise me to find
that STP chemical bond calculations still apply at 5 million
atmospheres, with electrons squeezed out from between the
hydrogen nuclei and freely roaming metal.
(The metastability must be some kind of collective interaction,
like the high temperature superconductivity metallic hydrogen
is also often predicted to possess)

Another amateur take on it: all that squeezing must put quite a
bit of energy into the hydrogen, that wasn't there at the start.



> On Jan 27, 2017, at 00:01 , Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> First, the H atoms in metallic hydrogen are already bound to other H atoms, 
> so you don't get that H+H=H2+436kJ/mol.  Second, H2+O=H2O+517kJ/mol.  Since a 
> mol of water is 9 times as heavy as a mol of H2 it's sonic velocity is 3 
> times lower.  So even if you could take advantage of the H+H reaction the Isp 
> would only be 3 times as high.  Still far lower than nuclear rocket and 52e3K.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 1/26/2017 8:05 PM, Hans Moravec wrote:
>> I think the intent is that metallic hydrogen alone is the fuel,
>> as a metastable way of storing some fraction of atomic
>> hydrogen recombination energy.  H + H -> H2 at 52,000K
>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 20:51 , Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Makes no sense.  Isp it just exhaust velocity which depends on the energy 
>>> release per molecule of the combustion products.  The energy per H2O 
>>> molecule isn't going to be any different when the H came from metallic 
>>> instead of liquid hydrogen.  Having metallic hydrogen might make the rocket 
>>> structurally more compact and lighter, but don't see how it can raise the 
>>> combustion temperature of the Isp.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> On 1/26/2017 4:24 PM, Hans Moravec wrote:
>>>> Something like antimatter propulsion, but much easier?
>>>> 
>>>> Metallic hydrogen: The most powerful rocket fuel
>>>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/meta
>>>> 
>>>> Hydrogen Squeezed Into a Metal, Possibly Solid, Harvard Physicists Say
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Metastable metallic hydrogen propulsion

[Hans Moravec]

I think the intent is that metallic hydrogen alone is the fuel,
as a metastable way of storing some fraction of atomic
hydrogen recombination energy.  H + H -> H2 at 52,000K

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 20:51 , Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Makes no sense.  Isp it just exhaust velocity which depends on the energy 
> release per molecule of the combustion products.  The energy per H2O molecule 
> isn't going to be any different when the H came from metallic instead of 
> liquid hydrogen.  Having metallic hydrogen might make the rocket structurally 
> more compact and lighter, but don't see how it can raise the combustion 
> temperature of the Isp.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 1/26/2017 4:24 PM, Hans Moravec wrote:
>> Something like antimatter propulsion, but much easier?
>> 
>> Metallic hydrogen: The most powerful rocket fuel
>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/meta
>> 
>> Hydrogen Squeezed Into a Metal, Possibly Solid, Harvard Physicists Say
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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.

Metastable metallic hydrogen propulsion

[Hans Moravec]

Something like antimatter propulsion, but much easier?

Metallic hydrogen: The most powerful rocket fuel
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/meta

Hydrogen Squeezed Into a Metal, Possibly Solid, Harvard Physicists Say
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html


-- 
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.

Re: The Weirdening

[Hans Moravec]

I’m on the list.  Clammed up  around 2000 to get on with
robot building.  Someday they can answer for themselves.

Still a few decades to go, but I expect
some machines built to work around people will act as if
they have feelings, and awareness of others’ feelings.
For all practical purposes they’ll be conscious.


> On 161227, at 7:15 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
> > 
> wrote:
> 
> Brent, can you please ask professor Moravec, if he has changed any of his 
> views from the books of his, "Mind Children," and "Robot," regarding 
> consciousness, and human "re-construction? (My weasel-word for it).

-- 
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.

Re: The Weirdening

[Hans Moravec]

Was expecting you, Brent, to remind Telmo of an SF story
you've recommended in past, that disarmingly unrolls
increasing subjective weirdness from MWI immortality.

Divided by Infinity   Robert Charles Wilson  1998
http://www.tor.com/2010/08/05/divided-by-infinity/


> On Dec 27, 2016, at 13:34 , Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> Although your evolution may be statistically improbable, mostly at the 
> biochemical level, there's no reason that the rest of the world should show 
> any statistical strangeness.  After all, your present existence is also 
> extremely improbable.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> On 12/27/2016 3:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> I take a break from the god-wars to propose an idea that I have been
>> thinking about. This is probably both silly and unoriginal, but here
>> it goes...
>> 
>> If we assume the MWI, isn't it the case that we should expect the
>> world to become weirder as we get older? My reasoning is simple: the
>> older you are, the lower your measure, the more specific events have
>> to "conspire" to keep you alive. As this specificity accumulates, it
>> increasingly bias the possible worlds.
>> 
>> One could even use a chart like the one below to predict where "the
>> weirdening" would accelerate. Of course this is not something that can
>> be directly measured, but still fun to think about.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_table#/media/File:Data_from_National_Vital_Statistics_Report_tPx.png
>> 
>> Do you guys think this idea has any merit?
>> 
>> Regarding the season, my wishes for you all: live long and prosper!
>> Telmo.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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.

Re: LIGO found a second Black Hole collision!

[Hans Moravec]

milligrams of antimatter to energize tons of hydrogen reaction mass, it’s an 
idea

> On 160617, at 8:39 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I was a friend of friend of Bob Forward and I once had dinner with him. 
>  At the time though he was pushing anti-matter powered spaceships; which I 
> thought was a crank idea.
> 
> Brent
> 
> On 6/16/2016 5:18 AM, Hans Moravec wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 23:48 , Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> When you look somewhere new, you see new things.  To bad Joe Weber didn't 
>>> live to see this.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>> And Bob Forward (Robert L. Forward), who was once Weber's grad student, and 
>> continued gravity related research and publication until his death in 2002.
>> 
>>> On 6/15/2016 7:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>> After analyzing the data from LIGO's brief engineering run the scientists 
>>>> there just announced they have found a second Black Hole merger. A Black 
>>>> Hole of 14 solar masses merged with one of 8 solar masses and produced a 
>>>> Black Hole of 21 solar masses and gravitational waves with 1 solar mass of 
>>>> energy. It happened 1.4 billion light years away, about the same distance 
>>>> as the first merger that was announced a few months ago, but the signal 
>>>> was weaker because the Black Holes involved were smaller (14 and 8 vs 36 
>>>> and 29) and also because the orbit of the Black Holes was more edge on 
>>>> relative to the Earth. Edge on means the signal is weaker but it also 
>>>> means it's easier to determine the spin, so unlike the first detection 
>>>> this time we can say with certainty that at least one of the Black Holes 
>>>> was spinning. And although weaker the signal lasted longer, almost a full 
>>>> second versus a fifth of a second the first time because being smaller the 
>>>> holes generated waves with higher frequencies that LIGO is more sensitive 
>>>> to.
>>>> 
>>>> And they're looking at at least one other suspected merger but they're 
>>>> only 85% certain it's real and that's not good enough to claim discovery, 
>>>> but there may be others so there may be a third announcement before long. 
>>>> Not bad for observing for only 18 days. The instrument was running at only 
>>>> one third power but that was still good enough to determine that 2 mirrors 
>>>> 4 kilometers apart had changed their distance by less than a billionth of 
>>>> a nanometer. I can't wait for September when the 2 LIGOs get back online 
>>>> and are joined by a third detector, VIRGO in Italy.
>>>> 
>>>> http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103
>>>> 
>>>>  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 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.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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.

Re: LIGO found a second Black Hole collision!

[Hans Moravec]

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 23:48 , Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> When you look somewhere new, you see new things.  To bad Joe Weber didn't 
> live to see this.
> 
> Brent

And Bob Forward (Robert L. Forward), who was once Weber's grad student, and 
continued gravity related research and publication until his death in 2002.

> 
> On 6/15/2016 7:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> After analyzing the data from LIGO's brief engineering run the scientists 
>> there just announced they have found a second Black Hole merger. A Black 
>> Hole of 14 solar masses merged with one of 8 solar masses and produced a 
>> Black Hole of 21 solar masses and gravitational waves with 1 solar mass of 
>> energy. It happened 1.4 billion light years away, about the same distance as 
>> the first merger that was announced a few months ago, but the signal was 
>> weaker because the Black Holes involved were smaller (14 and 8 vs 36 and 29) 
>> and also because the orbit of the Black Holes was more edge on relative to 
>> the Earth. Edge on means the signal is weaker but it also means it's easier 
>> to determine the spin, so unlike the first detection this time we can say 
>> with certainty that at least one of the Black Holes was spinning. And 
>> although weaker the signal lasted longer, almost a full second versus a 
>> fifth of a second the first time because being smaller the holes generated 
>> waves with higher frequencies that LIGO is more sensitive to. 
>> 
>> And they're looking at at least one other suspected merger but they're only 
>> 85% certain it's real and that's not good enough to claim discovery, but 
>> there may be others so there may be a third announcement before long. Not 
>> bad for observing for only 18 days. The instrument was running at only one 
>> third power but that was still good enough to determine that 2 mirrors 4 
>> kilometers apart had changed their distance by less than a billionth of a 
>> nanometer. I can't wait for September when the 2 LIGOs get back online and 
>> are joined by a third detector, VIRGO in Italy. 
>> 
>> http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 
>> 
>>  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 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 
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.

Provably exponential time algorithms

[Hans Moravec]

Encountered this on sci.math

From: Robert Israel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: are there problems that provably take exponential time to 
solve?
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 2002-12-30 13:59:18 PST

Bennett Haselton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has it been proven that there are problems which are decidable, but
cannot be solved in polynomial time?

Presburger arithmetic: the first-order theory of the natural numbers
with addition.  See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger+arithmetic

Robert Israel[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Mathematicshttp://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

[Hans Moravec]

Hal Finney:

there are no known problems which take
exponential time but which can be checked
in polynomial time.  If such a problem could
be found it would prove that P != NP ...


Communications glitch here.  The definition
of NP is problems that can be solved in
polynomial time on a nondeterministic
machine, that is one that can test
simultaneously all candidate solutions
(effectively by creating exponentially
many processes for testing all possible
combinations of undetermined variables,
each individual combination taking polynomial
time to check)

A favorite example is the traveling
salesman problem (TSP), stated as There is
a cycle of length no greater than L that
passes through all N nodes of this graph
exactly once.  (True or False)

There are exponentially (in N) many cycles,
so determining if any one of them has
length less than L would seem to require
exponential time (barring some yet-
undiscovered P=NP trick)

But if an exponential solution finder
also returns, when it answers True, a
cycle it found that had length =L, that
answer can be checked in linear time: just
add up the arc distances.

It is conceivable that an efficient TSP
solver could correctly return Yes for a
given L without being able to identify a
winning cycle.

Checking that answer would then be no easier
than solving the original problem.

By the way, it is known that factoring into
primes is easier than the TSP.  The discovery
of a classical polynomial time algorithm for
factoring would cause much less shock than
one for the TSP (which is NP-complete,
the hardest class of NP problems.  A polynomial
solution for any NP-complete problem can
be mapped into a polynomial solution for all
NP-complete problems, and thus all NP problems,
and factoring).

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

[Hans Moravec]

Hal Finney:

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with either of my statements above,
that (1) there are no known problems which take exponential time but
which can be checked in polynomial time, or that (2) if such a problem
could be found it would prove that P != NP.


Ah, I see the communications glitch was at my end!

You were being precise: NP-complete is not
known (for sure) to be exponentially hard,
so NP-complete problems are not counterexamples
to statement (1)

But maybe (2) doesn't follow.
There must be problems where checking some
negative cases (in the TSP sense) takes more
than polynomial time (maybe doesn't terminate),
but positive answers can be checked in polynomial
time.  Those would fit the criteria, but not
be in NP. (Trying to make one up ...)


As I understand the state of play, factoring into primes is not known
to be NP-complete, but the contrary is not known, either.  Factoring is
strongly suspected not to be NP-complete but that has not been proven.
So it is still possible that factoring into primes is just as hard as
the TSP, although it is thought to be unlikely (it would imply that
NP = coNP).


Right again, though apparently opinions differ about the unknowns:

http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/crypt-intro/node23.html
 ... It is suspected but not yet known that factoring is NP-complete.

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

[Hans Moravec]

http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/crypt-intro/node23.html
 ... It is suspected but not yet known that factoring is NP-complete.



Of course, if factoring were to be shown NP-complete
and quantum computers could be built to run Shor's
factoring algorithm in polynomial time, then quantum
computers could solve all NP-complete problems in
polynomial time.  Big advance for quantum computation.

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

[Hans Moravec]

Brent Meeker:

It seems [factoring] has been proven recently to be in P:
http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~stiglic/PRIMES_P_FAQ.html#PRIMES


No, that's primality testing, which has always been
much easier than factoring.

Re: Fwd: Implementation/Relativity

[Hans Moravec]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Earlier I think Hans said that one possible observer was the
 conscious entity himself.  I am an observer of my own consciousness.
 My consciousness (or lack thereof) is subjective, and varies
 depending on the observer, but one of the observers is me.  

 Does this mean that there is a special consciousness, which is that
 consciousness observed by the observer himself?

Under different interpretations, there are many such special internal
observers, all different and mostly unaware of each other, who
each see themselves implemented in the same body and brain. (Same as
for Putnam rocks or my sun creatures.)

What makes the usual you extra special out of all those is that it
is implemented in a way that allows the rest of us to communicate
with it easily.

 Does this self-interpretation have a privileged position, and if so
 could we choose to say that it is the true consciousness of Hans
 himself?

Because it is the communication that selects out the true
consciousness from the myriad alternatives, a Turing test
is the best way to identify it.

But different outside observers, who interpret your stuff in
different ways, won't necessarily register human-talk as meaningful.
They might instead achieve a meaningful conversation with one of
the other self-aware observers in a different interpretation of
your structure.
For them (as for itself) that other internal observer would be the
true you.

We see a hint of this when animals respond to our subconscious
emotions rather than our conscious beliefs and intentions.

There could even be observers that interpret your structure in
enough different ways to find several different consciousnesses
in you to talk to.  They would find the notion of true
consciousness rather pointless.

i.e. which is the true consciousness is observer-relative.

Re: Implementation

[Hans Moravec]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 My view is that it is possible that the isomorphism exists, but I am
 not convinced that it is guaranteed to exist.  Much information is
 not recorded in the HLUT - emotional states, alternate answers which
 were considered and then rejected, etc.  People have been known to
 keep secrets their entire lives.  Is it guaranteed that every
 private thought of the original conscious program can be deduced by
 looking at its responses to all possible conversations?  Maybe there
 are some programs so closemouthed that no conversation could cause
 them to reveal their secrets.  In that case I don't see how any
 amount of study of the HLUT could reveal the full structure of the
 original program.

Operations in an alleged original program that don't affect I/O in any
possible case are just junk, functionally equivalent to null
operations.  They don't play a role the isomorphism.

Compiler writers will tell you that computations that have no effect
at all on I/O behaviour can be optimized out.

Evolution would be similarly ruthless in deleting structures that have
no effect on behavior, except to uselessly consume metabolic
resources.


A bad programmer might have included nonsense loops in the original
program that did nothing but bloat its size and waste execution
time.  A good programmer or compiler whould clean up such code,
leaving only the essentials to produce the proper I/O.

A program reverse-engineered from a HLT might resemble a
program written by a good programmer.

But, with or without junk code, all encodings of the same I/O
behavior are isomorphic.

re: Relative consciousness (was: Alternate deductive route ...)

[Hans Moravec]

[1: human in physical world, 2: AI robot in world, 3: human in VR, 4: AI
in VR]

Russell Standish In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Hans
Moravec at Jul 7, 99 06:02:12 pm
 [ 1: human in physical world,
   2: AI in physical world robot,
   3: human in VR,
   4: AI in VR ]
 We have already discussed the concept that conciousness is a relative
 concept. In your cases above, 1-3 would indeed be concious relative to
 our own, but case 4 would not (if it is an entirely deterministic system
 with no free will), and case 3 is arguable I suppose.

Ah, but you can embed nondeterministic process in deterministic ones
by taking all paths at each decision point.  Any individual thread
through the branching tree will seem (be) nondeterministic.

And then later, I, outside, can interact with one of those threads,
and listen in on the being discussing its surprising life experiences.

 and case 3 is arguable I suppose

It seems a strange distinction to say someone's consciousness
is somehow not there when they're jacked into a VR.  How about
if we forget about the VR, and just wall someone off from us,
so they can't interact.  Or send them away to a distant star.
Are they then not conscious relative to us?  Is there a
pont in making this distinction?  In the wall, star and VR case,
we could make an effort and eventually reestablish communication.
Wouldn't it be clearer to simply say they're out of touch with us
rather than they're not conscious relative to us?