Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/28/2021 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What do you mean by non effective. 


It doesn't produce any testable predictions.  It doesn't explain why we 
are fooled by some optical illusions and not others.  It doesn't predict 
who will suffer Alzheimer's and who won't.  It doesn't explain why most 
mathematics is done subconsciously (c.f. Poincare').


The theory of consciousness (the knowledge that there is a reality) 
brought by the universal machine, all by itself, is *effective*. It 
entails immediately the many-worlds appearances (I got it long before 
I discovered Everett or even QM), 


You got it...but it's untestable and no one knows wether it's true. As 
you are fond of saying, it's theology...like discovering heaven.


Brent

and it entails that the logic of the observable is given by precise 
 intensional variants of the provability logic, and indeed, we got 
them there. Only the future experimentation will refute this theory, 
and Mechanism by the same token. It is hard to imagine a more 
effective theory. In fact, I predicted in the 1970 that it would be 
refuted before 2000. That did not happen, and I am not sure why, 
probably a lack of interest in serious theoretical 
bio-psycho-theology. But the burden of the ontological proof is in the 
hand of the believer (in a material pricey universe). No need to study 
the theology of the machine, as the simple fact that all computations 
are executed in arithmetic is enough to put physicalism in doubt. But 
the theology of the machine confirms that such an existence is feely 
plausible, beside making the mind-body problem unsolvable with Mechanism.
A pedagogical problem is that many people confuse the physical reality 
(that no one doubt), and the assumption that the physical reality is 
not explainable from something non physical which is what Mechanism 
put a doubt upon.


Bruno

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 12:19:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:



On 7/26/2021 2:15 PM, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List  wrote:

>> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good
enough, they all fit the facts equally well, choosing one
is entirely a matter of taste.

/So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or
is immortal soul stuff are equally good theories? Both
consistent with the fact that alcohol affects
consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?/


I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness
and my behavior,and I would be able to prove it affects your
behavior too, but I have no way of proving it affects your
consciousness, assuming you even have consciousness.


You keep resorting to "prove" and "know" to argue that science
can't apply to consciousness.  All theories of consciousness are
equally good and bad.  But "prove" and "know" are not the standard
in any science.  We never "prove" or "know" things in physics
either.  All we ask for is predictive power and theoretical
consilience.




/> If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it
with a machine that could scan any brain at any moment and
tell me what that brain was consciously thinking...an
effective theory of consciousness...then/


Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working
properly, and how on earth do you read the machine's output?


The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate Beckinsale" 
and then I ask you and you say, "I was thinking about Bruno
Marchal"...but I can see the erection.



Suppose I'm sad and you put me in the machine and the pointer on
the machine's sadness dial moves to the 62.4 mark, does that
number enable you to understand what it's like for John K Clark
to be sad? I don't think so.


But I can already understand what it's like for John K Clark to be
sad, because I've been sad.  Isn't that a good theory...and don't
tell me it doesn't /*prove*/ that I know.




> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it
fundamentally?"


Exactly, even if by some miracleyou could somehow prove thatX
caused consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they
would demand to know WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to
know what caused X.


My point is that none of that prevents having an effective theory
of consciousness.  It's my main compliant about Bruno's theory. 
It's almost completely descriptive of what conscious information
processing might be.  It's not effective.

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 view this discussion on the 

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Bruno Marchal]

What do you mean by non effective. The theory of consciousness (the 
knowledge that there is a reality) brought by the universal machine, all by 
itself, is *effective*. It entails immediately the many-worlds appearances 
(I got it long before I discovered Everett or even QM), and it entails that 
the logic of the observable is given by precise  intensional variants of 
the provability logic, and indeed, we got them there. Only the future 
experimentation will refute this theory, and Mechanism by the same token. 
It is hard to imagine a more effective theory. In fact, I predicted in the 
1970 that it would be refuted before 2000. That did not happen, and I am 
not sure why, probably a lack of interest in serious theoretical 
bio-psycho-theology. But the burden of the ontological proof is in the hand 
of the believer (in a material pricey universe). No need to study the 
theology of the machine, as the simple fact that all computations are 
executed in arithmetic is enough to put physicalism in doubt. But the 
theology of the machine confirms that such an existence is feely plausible, 
beside making the mind-body problem unsolvable with Mechanism.
A pedagogical problem is that many people confuse the physical reality 
(that no one doubt), and the assumption that the physical reality is not 
explainable from something non physical which is what Mechanism put a doubt 
upon.

Bruno 

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 12:19:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 7/26/2021 2:15 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they 
>>> all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of taste.
>>
>>  
>
> *So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is immortal 
>> soul stuff are equally good theories?  Both consistent with the fact that 
>> alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?*
>
>
> I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness and my 
> behavior, and I would be able to prove it affects your behavior too, but 
> I have no way of proving it affects your consciousness, assuming you even 
> have consciousness.  
>
>
> You keep resorting to "prove" and "know" to argue that science can't apply 
> to consciousness.  All theories of consciousness are equally good and bad.  
> But "prove" and "know" are not the standard in any science.  We never 
> "prove" or "know" things in physics either.  All we ask for is predictive 
> power and theoretical consilience.
>
>
>
> * > If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine 
>> that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was 
>> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then*
>
>
> Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and how 
> on earth do you read the machine's output? 
>
>
> The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate Beckinsale"  and then I 
> ask you and you say, "I was thinking about Bruno Marchal"...but I can see 
> the erection.
>
>
> Suppose I'm sad and you put me in the machine and the pointer on the 
> machine's sadness dial moves to the 62.4 mark, does that number enable you 
> to understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad? I don't think so.
>
>
> But I can already understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad, 
> because I've been sad.  Isn't that a good theory...and don't tell me it 
> doesn't *prove* that I know.
>
>
>
> > people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"
>
>
> Exactly, even if by some miracle you could somehow prove that X caused 
> consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they would demand to know 
> WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to know what caused X.  
>
>
> My point is that none of that prevents having an effective theory of 
> consciousness.  It's my main compliant about Bruno's theory.  It's almost 
> completely descriptive of what conscious information processing might be.  
> It's not effective.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a2d4f1-cf4d-44b3-a2de-ecb659883dcbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/26/2021 2:15 PM, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


>> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good
enough, they all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is
entirely a matter of taste.

/So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is
immortal soul stuff are equally good theories?  Both consistent
with the fact that alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it
affects soul stuff?/


I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness and 
my behavior,and I would be able to prove it affects your behavior too, 
but I have no way of proving it affects your consciousness, assuming 
you even have consciousness.


You keep resorting to "prove" and "know" to argue that science can't 
apply to consciousness.  All theories of consciousness are equally good 
and bad.  But "prove" and "know" are not the standard in any science.  
We never "prove" or "know" things in physics either.  All we ask for is 
predictive power and theoretical consilience.




/> If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a
machine that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what
that brain was consciously thinking...an effective theory of
consciousness...then/


Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and 
how on earth do you read the machine's output?


The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate Beckinsale"  and then 
I ask you and you say, "I was thinking about Bruno Marchal"...but I can 
see the erection.


Suppose I'm sad and you put me in the machine and the pointer on the 
machine's sadness dial moves to the 62.4 mark, does that number enable 
you to understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad? I don't 
think so.


But I can already understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad, 
because I've been sad.  Isn't that a good theory...and don't tell me it 
doesn't /*prove*/ that I know.




> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it
fundamentally?"


Exactly, even if by some miracleyou could somehow prove thatX caused 
consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they would demand to 
know WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to know what caused X.


My point is that none of that prevents having an effective theory of 
consciousness.  It's my main compliant about Bruno's theory.  It's 
almost completely descriptive of what conscious information processing 
might be.  It's not effective.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c33422c2-4e12-4a6e-3584-972e3d62e1ce%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they all
>> fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of taste.
>
>

*So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is immortal
> soul stuff are equally good theories?  Both consistent with the fact that
> alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?*


I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness and my
behavior, and I would be able to prove it affects your behavior too, but I
have no way of proving it affects your consciousness, assuming you even
have consciousness.


* > If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine
> that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was
> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then*


Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and how
on earth do you read the machine's output? Suppose I'm sad and you put me
in the machine and the pointer on the machine's sadness dial moves to the
62.4 mark, does that number enable you to understand what it's like for
John K Clark to be sad? I don't think so.

> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"


Exactly, even if by some miracle you could somehow prove that X caused
consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they would demand to know
WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to know what caused X.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


1Il




> * If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine
> that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was
> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then*
>

Then I would ask, how do you know that your machine accurately described
what I was consciously feeling?






> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"
>
> Brent
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> nn22
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/996098bd-0740--5632-60180466f0dd%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>



> * If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine
> that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was
> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then*
>

Then I would ask, how do you know that your machine accurately described
what I was consciously feeling?






> people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"
>
> Brent
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> nn22
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/996098bd-0740--5632-60180466f0dd%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you 

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/26/2021 11:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


>> When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data
point to work with, and there are an infinite number of ways
to draw a line through a single point.


/> Really? /


Yes really.

/> Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious
in a way similar to you? /


No. As I've said more than once, I accept the theory that other people 
are conscious but not for any scientific reason, not because it fits 
the facts better than any other consciousness theory, but simply 
because I could not function if I really thought I was the only 
conscious being in the universe.  The consciousness gurus want to 
understand at the most fundamental level how consciousness works in 
the same way that they understand how Newtonian physics works, and 
that just ain't going to happen; they've made zero progress during the 
last thousand years and I expect they'll make just as much in the next 
thousand. Consciousness research is a bore, intelligence research is 
where it's at.


/> There are certainly similarities of intelligence, including the
ways in which we a tricked by illusions and priming by words.  I
think the "hard problem of consciousness" is made hard by this
kind insistence on incorrigible personal subjectivity which if it
were applied consistently would make all science impossible:/


That doesn't make any sense. Yes, if you're scientifically studying 
objective realitylike physics or biology then personal subjectivityis 
of no help and just gets in the way, but if you're studying personal 
subjectivity then ... well ... you've got to study personal 
subjectivity, and there is no way to do that objectively or 
scientifically.


>///"Well I seem to have heard Bob say that the needle pointed to
2.23 but how do I know he meant the same thing that I do when I
see the needle point to 2.23."/


If I'm studying consciousness then I don't care what Bob says and I 
don't care what Bob does, I only care what Bob feels, and there is no 
way to do that scientificallywithout making unproven and unprovable 
assumptions.



/> With sufficiently bizarre ancillary assumptions.  You
apparently agree with Bruno that a blow to the head doesn't
eliminate consciousness thru a effect on your brain; it's merely a
discontinuity in the stream of experiences called "John K Clark"
and his brain is merely a construct of this stream. /


I don't agree with that, or maybe I do, I'm not sure becauseI don't  
know what it means.I think John K Clark is the way matter behaves when 
it is organized in a johnkclarkian way.


/> Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without
language?/


Certainly not. My consciousness wouldn't be the same as it is nowif I 
knew no language, and my consciousness would be different if mynative 
language was Spanish rather than English too, or if I had been born in 
Sweden rather than the USA.


/> Empiricists just look of a good enough theory./


That's the problem,ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they 
all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of 
taste.


So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is immortal 
soul stuff are equally good theories?  Both consistent with the fact 
that alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?


And there is no arguing in matters of taste. And because objective 
empiricism is of no help in understanding the fundamental nature of 
consciousness, the field has not advanced one nanometer in the last 
thousand years.


Now you're trying to move the goal post.  Bruno says, with equal 
justification, there's been no advancement in understanding the 
/*fundamental*/ nature of matter in the last thousand years.  Sure we've 
got a lot of effective theories, but what is matter /*really*/? And 
that's exactly my complaint about the "hard problem of consciousness".  
If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine 
that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was 
consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then 
people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"


Brent



John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 



nn22





--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com 

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 >> When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data point to
>> work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a line through
>> a single point.
>
>
> * > Really? *
>

Yes really.

*> Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious in a way
> similar to you? *
>

No. As I've said more than once, I accept the theory that other people are
conscious but not for any scientific reason, not because it fits the facts
better than any other consciousness theory, but simply because I could not
function if I really thought I was the only conscious being in the
universe.  The consciousness gurus want to understand at the most
fundamental level how consciousness works in the same way that they
understand how Newtonian physics works, and that just ain't going to
happen; they've made zero progress during the last thousand years and I
expect they'll make just as much in the next thousand. Consciousness
research is a bore, intelligence research is where it's at.

*> There are certainly similarities of intelligence, including the ways in
> which we a tricked by illusions and priming by words.  I think the "hard
> problem of consciousness" is made hard by this kind insistence on
> incorrigible personal subjectivity which if it were applied consistently
> would make all science impossible:*
>

That doesn't make any sense. Yes, if you're scientifically studying objective
reality like physics or biology then personal subjectivity is of no help
and just gets in the way, but if you're studying personal subjectivity then
... well ... you've got to study personal subjectivity, and there is no way
to do that objectively or scientifically.


> > *"Well I seem to have heard Bob say that the needle pointed to 2.23 but
> how do I know he meant the same thing that I do when I see the needle point
> to 2.23."*
>

If I'm studying consciousness then I don't care what Bob says and I don't
care what Bob does, I only care what Bob feels, and there is no way to do
that scientifically without making unproven and unprovable assumptions.


* > With sufficiently bizarre ancillary assumptions.  You apparently agree
> with Bruno that a blow to the head doesn't eliminate consciousness thru a
> effect on your brain; it's merely a discontinuity in the stream of
> experiences called "John K Clark" and his brain is merely a construct of
> this stream. *
>

I don't agree with that, or maybe I do, I'm not sure because I don't  know
what it means. I think John K Clark is the way matter behaves when it is
organized in a johnkclarkian way.

* > Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without
> language?*
>

Certainly not. My consciousness wouldn't be the same as it is now if I knew
no language, and my consciousness would be different if my native language
was Spanish rather than English too, or if I had been born in Sweden rather
than the USA.


> *> Empiricists just look of a good enough theory.*
>

That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they all
fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of taste. And
there is no arguing in matters of taste. And because objective empiricism
is of no help in understanding the fundamental nature of consciousness, the
field has not advanced one nanometer in the last thousand years.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


nn22

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3ZygSj5veYrEfgXSLoji6LhuVAb01i8R7zQ2Hhe4H8wA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/26/2021 2:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


>> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by
making objective observations about the way things behave, but
consciousness is a subjective phenomenon and that's what
causes the problem. The theory that other humans besides me
are conscious is perfectly consistent with all observable
evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious
being in the universe, 



/> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness
is instantiated by physical processes in the brain./


No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did 
not then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the 
observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory 
that the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be 
produced is perfectly consistent with all observational evidence 
available to me. And even I am not conscious all the time, not when 
I'm sleeping or under anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be 
conscious when I'm dead either.


> And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments
on brains and the reports by subjects.


Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data 
point to work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a 
line through a single point.


Really?  Do you really reject the theory that other people are conscious 
in a way similar to you?  There are certainly similarities of 
intelligence, including the ways in which we a tricked by illusions and 
priming by words.  I think the "hard problem of consciousness" is made 
hard by this kind insistence on incorrigible personal subjectivity which 
if it were applied consistently would make all science impossible: "Well 
I seem to have heard Bob say that the needle pointed to 2.23 but how do 
I know he meant the same thing that I do when I see the needle point to 
2.23."




>> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious,
even grains of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons.
The trouble is ANY consciousnesstheory will fit the observable
facts just fine, and that's why ALL consciousnesstheories are
utterly useless, except for the theory that solipsism is
untrue, that one has a use. 



/> But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe
the ones that are consistent with the facts/


All theories of consciousness fit the facts,


With sufficiently bizarre ancillary assumptions.  You apparently agree 
with Bruno that a blow to the head doesn't eliminate consciousness thru 
a effect on your brain; it's merely a discontinuity in the stream of 
experiences called "John K Clark" and his brain is merely a construct of 
this stream.  I find the theory that consciousness is produced by brain 
activity to be pretty good.


the same can certainly *NOT* be said of theories of intelligence, 
that's why consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard.


> /And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are
conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and
in fact any human lineage*that did not hold* that theory has
already been eliminated by evolution. /


I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is 
being processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never 
be able to prove it)


Do you think you could be conscious in the way you are without language?

then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own actions 
are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of that 
environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate 
what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future. 
When 3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one 
grain of sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the 
other two grains change the position of the first grain, however that 
is not evidence that the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it 
is not evidence that the 3 grains of sand are not conscious either.


/> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?/


No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about itand my first 
impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have 
not read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it 
just proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better 
and no worse than every other rival theory of consciousness.


Jaynes takes perceptive consciousness as given and develops a theory of 
how narrative consciousness evolved.  Of course it doesn't prove that's 
what happened anymore than the fact that you and I can discuss 
consciousness proves 

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree that solving the folding of protein problem is a huge 
accomplishment. To get consciousness you need to apply DeepMind on itself, 
and wait. That will give a sort of "universal baby", and it will get the G* 
theology/psychology as long as it remains arithmetically sound. 
Consciousness is really just the knowledge (true belief) that there is some 
reality, followed by the Löbian understanding that this reality is not 
definable "by me", unless introducing some strong hypothesis, like 
(digital) Mechanism. 
I read that the most powerful version of Alphago, the playing go program 
(neural net) is the version which learned by playing only with itself. It 
beats completely the version learning from a lot a great player examples. 
That was predicted by Mechanism, except that Mechanism did not put a limit 
if time for the learning phase.  We are really close to make that universal 
baby, and we might get a terrible child, also. It will be like with kids: a 
problem of education.

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:33:27 AM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making 
>>> objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness is a 
>>> subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The theory that 
>>> other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly consistent with all 
>>> observable evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious 
>>> being in the universe, 
>>
>>
>> *> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is 
>>> instantiated by physical processes in the brain.*
>>
>>
> No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did not 
> then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the 
> observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory that 
> the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be produced is 
> perfectly consistent with all observational evidence available to me. And 
> even I am not conscious all the time, not when I'm sleeping or under 
> anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be conscious when I'm dead either.
>
>  > And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments on 
>> brains and the reports by subjects.
>>
>
> Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data point to 
> work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a line through 
> a single point. 
>
> >> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even grains 
>>> of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY conscious
>>> ness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and that's why ALL 
>>> consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for the theory that 
>>> solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.  
>>
>>
>> *> But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe the 
>> ones that are consistent with the facts*
>>
>
> All theories of consciousness fit the facts, the same can certainly *NOT* 
> be said of theories of intelligence, that's why consciousness is easy but 
> intelligence is hard.   
>  
>
>>   > *And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are 
>> conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact 
>> any human lineage that did not hold that theory has already been eliminated 
>> by evolution. *
>>
>
> I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is being 
> processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never be able to 
> prove it)  then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own 
> actions are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of 
> that environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate 
> what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future. When 
> 3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one grain of 
> sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the other two grains 
> change the position of the first grain, however that is not evidence that 
> the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it is not evidence that the 3 
> grains of sand are not conscious either. 
>
> *> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the 
>> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?*
>>
>
> No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about it and my first 
> impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have not 
> read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it just 
> proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better and no worse 
> than every other rival theory of consciousness. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>  
> 89n
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making
>> objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness is a
>> subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The theory that
>> other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly consistent with all
>> observable evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious
>> being in the universe,
>
>
> *> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is
>> instantiated by physical processes in the brain.*
>
>
No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did not
then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the
observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory that
the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be produced is
perfectly consistent with all observational evidence available to me. And
even I am not conscious all the time, not when I'm sleeping or under
anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be conscious when I'm dead either.

 > And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments on
> brains and the reports by subjects.
>

Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data point to
work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a line through
a single point.

>> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even grains
>> of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY conscious
>> ness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and that's why ALL
>> consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for the theory that
>> solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.
>
>
> *> But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe the ones
> that are consistent with the facts*
>

All theories of consciousness fit the facts, the same can certainly *NOT*
be said of theories of intelligence, that's why consciousness is easy but
intelligence is hard.


>   > *And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are
> conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact
> any human lineage that did not hold that theory has already been eliminated
> by evolution. *
>

I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is being
processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never be able to
prove it)  then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own
actions are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of
that environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate
what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future. When
3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one grain of
sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the other two grains
change the position of the first grain, however that is not evidence that
the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it is not evidence that the 3
grains of sand are not conscious either.

*> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the
> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?*
>

No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about it and my first
impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have not
read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it just
proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better and no worse
than every other rival theory of consciousness.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

89n

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Y_Ndywcxp9ev4WwaaaFJAF9mi0YYoFxiaLUET1VG3pQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 23:38, John Clark  a écrit :

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 4:44 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *> And you have no way of knowing what it will feel like to be John K
>> Clark tomorrow, but you have a pretty good theory about it. *
>>
>
> Yes, and tomorrow I will be able to definitively know if yesterday's
> theory about what it will be like to be John K Clark today turned out to be
> correct or not.
>
> * > Similarly, you probably have a better theory about what it would feel
>> like to be Brent Meeker than to be DeepMind. *
>>
>
> No, there's nothing similar at all about it because tomorrow I will STILL have
> absolutely positively no way of knowing if yesterday's theory about what it
> will be like to be Brent Meeker or DeepMind today turned out to be
> correct or not, in fact I will NEVER know if it's correct
>
> > *Consciousness is imagined be an impossibly hard problem because it's
>> posed as being able to predict conscious thoughts from monitoring a brain. *
>>
>
> The hardest part of the "hard problem of consciousness" is clearly
> explaining exactly what "the hard problem of consciousness" is, it's not at
> all clear to me exactly what sort of explanation would satisfy the
> consciousness gurus.
>

You explained it yourself in the preceeding paragraph, let me quote it for
you:
"in fact I will NEVER know if it's correct"

That's the *hard* problem of consciousness, others qualia.

Quentin


>
> *> But that's like saying gravity is a hard problem because we can't
>> predict the motion of all the stars in a galaxy (or even three bodies).*
>>
>
> I can make exact Newtonian predictions in a few very special situations
> but in general you're right, I can't make an exact prediction of the
> motion of 3 particles, but I can make some very good approximations, and by
> using The Virial Theorem I can even make a good approximation for the
> motions of millions of bodies. However I don't know, and will never know,
> if my predictions about a consciousness other than my own is even
> approximately correct. And that's why consciousness theories are so easy
> to dream up, and that's also why they're such a colossal bore.
>
> *> the fact that you can say the consciousness of DeepMind might be so
>> different you have no way of knowing what it would be like implies that
>> there can be qualitatively different kinds of consciousness. *
>>
>
> Yes. I only have experience with my own consciousness but I know for a
> fact that depending on the time of day my consciousness can be
> qualitatively different, and I've known that for a long time. Back when I
> was a student taking a calculus exam my consciousness had reached a
> high-level but later that same night when I was falling asleep it was at a
> much lower level and just a little later it fell all the way to zero, and
> then what seemed instantaneous but actually took 8 hours it started up
> again.
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> 0o0o
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2mxNZd8m_P4Z6ggdV2sgmV3BmjC8DGViuLacwO8ZVoJQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo1fA6JuCLRbqJ%2BgZAr7gRBKsjkCR3Dx7FcxK09KvvtNA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Oops! Correction

On 7/25/2021 4:06 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:



On 7/25/2021 3:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making 
objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness 
is a subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The 
theory that other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly 
consistent with all observable evidence, but so is the theory that I 
am the only conscious being in the universe,


But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is 
instantiated by physical processes in the brain.  And that theory is 
supported by many observations and experiments on brains and the 
reports by subjects.


and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even 
grains of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is 
ANY consciousness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and 
that's why ALL consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for 
the theory that solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.


But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe the 
ones that are consistent with the facts and are most useful.  And the 
theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are conscious and 
have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact any human 
lineage/*that did not hold*/ that theory has already been eliminated 
by evolution.  Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of 
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c732b029-b833-6eb4-f4d0-ed366fa90003%40verizon.net 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60a574d9-456c-5f80-e1fa-5e1052fb1fda%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/25/2021 3:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making 
objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness 
is a subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The 
theory that other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly 
consistent with all observable evidence, but so is the theory that I 
am the only conscious being in the universe,


But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is 
instantiated by physical processes in the brain.  And that theory is 
supported by many observations and experiments on brains and the reports 
by subjects.


and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even grains 
of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY 
consciousness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and 
that's why ALL consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for 
the theory that solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.


But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe the ones 
that are consistent with the facts and are most useful.  And the theory 
of minds, that other people (and animals) are conscious and have an 
internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact any human lineage 
held that theory has already been eliminated by evolution.  Did you ever 
read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the 
Bicameral Mind"?


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c732b029-b833-6eb4-f4d0-ed366fa90003%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 5:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> I only have experience with my own consciousness but I know for a fact
>> that depending on the time of day my consciousness can be qualitatively
>> different, and I've known that for a long time. Back when I was a student
>> taking a calculus exam my consciousness had reached a high-level but later
>> that same night when I was falling asleep it was at a much lower level and
>> just a little later it fell all the way to zero, and then what seemed
>> instantaneous but actually took 8 hours it started up again.
>
>
> * > True.  But you left off the interesting conclusion,*
>

Conclusion?

> *i.e. that different kinds of consciousness maybe connected to different
> kinds of intelligence. *
>

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know and will never know, although I don't see
how Darwinian Evolution could've produced consciousness if it was not the
inevitable byproduct of intelligence.  That's why I think it would be wise
to stop worrying about how consciousness works and concentrate on how
intelligence works,

*> Just as your consciousness can go from awake to asleep (which is
> actually different from unconscious), it can also be merely perceptive, or
> it can imagine things, or think of a narrative story, and these can be
> mixed with various emotional feelings. Right?*
>

My consciousness can do that but I have no evidence any other consciousness
can, or evidence they can't, or even evidence that other consciousnesses
exist; but I must assume that they do because I simply could not function
if I really believed that I was the only conscious being in the universe,
so it's very useful for me to believe that I am not alone. But that doesn't
prove that what I believe is true.

>
> *If you agree or not, either way it implies that we can test theories of
> consciousness.*
>

In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making objective
observations about the way things behave, but consciousness is a subjective
phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The theory that other humans
besides me are conscious is perfectly consistent with all observable
evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious being in the
universe, and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even
grains of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY
consciousness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and that's
why ALL consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for the theory
that solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

Qon

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2zWA322y0wsMxP0-1k-TWVRwdfy%2BoGZ1vbwXwazj1WTw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/25/2021 2:38 PM, John Clark wrote:


/> the fact that you can say the consciousness of DeepMind might
be so different you have no way of knowing what it would be like
implies that there can be qualitatively different kinds of
consciousness. /


Yes. I only have experience with my own consciousness but I know for a 
fact that depending on the time of day my consciousness can be 
qualitatively different, and I've known that for a long time. Back 
when I was a student taking a calculus exam my consciousness had 
reached a high-level but later that same night when I was falling 
asleep it was at a much lower level and just a little later it fell 
all the way to zero, and then what seemed instantaneous but actually 
took 8 hours it started up again.


True.  But you left off the interesting conclusion, i.e. that different 
kinds of consciousness maybe connected to different kinds of 
intelligence.  Just as your consciousness can go from awake to asleep 
(which is actually different from unconscious), it can also be merely 
perceptive, or it can imagine things, or think of a narrative story, and 
these can be mixed with various emotional feelings.  Right?  If you 
agree or not, either way it implies that we can test theories of 
consciousness.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20d4da8c-10ef-9b92-82b0-312808312671%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 4:44 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> And you have no way of knowing what it will feel like to be John K Clark
> tomorrow, but you have a pretty good theory about it. *
>

Yes, and tomorrow I will be able to definitively know if yesterday's theory
about what it will be like to be John K Clark today turned out to be
correct or not.

* > Similarly, you probably have a better theory about what it would feel
> like to be Brent Meeker than to be DeepMind. *
>

No, there's nothing similar at all about it because tomorrow I will STILL have
absolutely positively no way of knowing if yesterday's theory about what it
will be like to be Brent Meeker or DeepMind today turned out to be correct
or not, in fact I will NEVER know if it's correct

> *Consciousness is imagined be an impossibly hard problem because it's
> posed as being able to predict conscious thoughts from monitoring a brain. *
>

The hardest part of the "hard problem of consciousness" is clearly
explaining exactly what "the hard problem of consciousness" is, it's not at
all clear to me exactly what sort of explanation would satisfy the
consciousness gurus.

*> But that's like saying gravity is a hard problem because we can't
> predict the motion of all the stars in a galaxy (or even three bodies).*
>

I can make exact Newtonian predictions in a few very special situations but
in general you're right, I can't make an exact prediction of the motion of
3 particles, but I can make some very good approximations, and by using The
Virial Theorem I can even make a good approximation for the motions of
millions of bodies. However I don't know, and will never know, if my
predictions about a consciousness other than my own is even approximately
correct. And that's why consciousness theories are so easy to dream up, and
that's also why they're such a colossal bore.

*> the fact that you can say the consciousness of DeepMind might be so
> different you have no way of knowing what it would be like implies that
> there can be qualitatively different kinds of consciousness. *
>

Yes. I only have experience with my own consciousness but I know for a fact
that depending on the time of day my consciousness can be qualitatively
different, and I've known that for a long time. Back when I was a student
taking a calculus exam my consciousness had reached a high-level but later
that same night when I was falling asleep it was at a much lower level and
just a little later it fell all the way to zero, and then what seemed
instantaneous but actually took 8 hours it started up again.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


0o0o

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2mxNZd8m_P4Z6ggdV2sgmV3BmjC8DGViuLacwO8ZVoJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/25/2021 12:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 2:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


/> It's certainly impressive...and useful.  But notice how very
different it is from what we call intelligence in humans./


At least in this case the biggest difference is the artificial version 
of Intelligence works one hell of a lot better than thenon-artificial 
human variety.


/> I wonder what kind of consciousness you would infer from
DeepMind's behavior?
/


I've always thought intelligence is hard but consciousness is easy, so 
to be consistent I'd have to say it must possess consciousness of some 
sort. Subjectively I have no way of knowing what it would feel like to 
be DeepMind, but then subjectively I have no way of knowing what it 
would feel like to be Brent Meeker either.


And you have no way of knowing what it will feel like to be John K Clark 
tomorrow, but you have a pretty good theory about it.  Similarly, you 
probably have a better theory about what it would feel like to be Brent 
Meeker than to be DeepMind.  So I make two points.


First, science isn't about /*knowing*/ stuff; it's just about having 
good theories.  Consciousness is imagined be an impossibly hard problem 
because it's posed as being able to predict conscious thoughts from 
monitoring a brain.  But that's like saying gravity is a hard problem 
because we can't predict the motion of all the stars in a galaxy (or 
even three bodies).


Second, the fact that you can say the consciousness of DeepMind might be 
so different you have no way of knowing what it would be like implies 
that there can be qualitatively different kinds of consciousness.  
Whether or how those kinds are correlated with different kinds of 
intelligence is an interesting question; which might lead to some good 
theories.


Brent



John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


vqmz



DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including
every one made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug
design.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share




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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bNdcU3xy2CzppTpY1DwJRScHE9mtzKaUrTY5v6rAajw%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/638b9d94-b235-74ba-381f-542d2e06a5d1%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Good questions.

On 7/25/2021 10:35 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
This is indeed a historic moment for AI - protein folding is 
unbelievably complex and to now have a tool that can deal with that 
complexity is of inestimable value. But I do have these concerns:


  * It will be tempting to assume that DeepMind is correct on any
given structure. But we don't have any easy way to test it. Of
course, we can have a high degree of confidence that the predicted
shape is accurate, and the value in that is already huge. But
mistakes will be made based on this assumption.

Also, in a cell the folding of a protein is affected by things like 
salinity and even by helper molecules.



  * This tool can be weaponized to create new and even highly-targeted
poisons. It's not hard to imagine developing a poison that was
only toxic for people of a certain race and then delivering it via
virus.



Actually that is pretty hard to imagine.  Since race is largely a social 
construction, it doesn't really correlate well with cellular 
metabolism.  We already know of some fungal diseases that tend to attack 
dark skinned people, but not with the mortality and specificity you 
could use as a poison.


Brent


  * Who has access to DeepMind?
  * Are we comfortable with a corporation controlling something so
powerful and with potential global security issues? This question
will only get increasingly more relevant as new advances in AI are
made. Can the world ever hope to regulate something so
simultaneously powerful and cutting edge?

Terren


On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:56 AM John Clark > wrote:


In my opinion this is the most impressive thing that Artificial
Intelligence has done to date:

From The New York Times:

A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including
every one made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug
design.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share




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 view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2v2BPqSbKyDSRiRCYAs9jAVRMtEAA5EfscX8nukJzkEw%40mail.gmail.com

.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9dE9dRujPyEXjsyf3NaKHFJaSDvCvJ4q5iAWsAnUfcdQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0144814e-1d70-2f2e-fddb-69c86a13ca9e%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 2:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > It's certainly impressive...and useful.  But notice how very different
> it is from what we call intelligence in humans.*
>

At least in this case the biggest difference is the artificial version
of Intelligence
works one hell of a lot better than the non-artificial human variety.


> * > I wonder what kind of consciousness you would infer from DeepMind's
> behavior?*
>

I've always thought intelligence is hard but consciousness is easy, so to
be consistent I'd have to say it must possess consciousness of some sort.
Subjectively I have no way of knowing what it would feel like to be
DeepMind, but then subjectively I have no way of knowing what it would feel
like to be Brent Meeker either.


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

vqmz


> DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including every one
> made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug design.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bNdcU3xy2CzppTpY1DwJRScHE9mtzKaUrTY5v6rAajw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

It's certainly impressive...and useful.  But notice how very different 
it is from what we call intelligence in humans.  It's more like the 
accomplishment of an idiot savant.   Since you often make the point that 
consciousness can only be inferred from intelligent behavior, I wonder 
what kind of consciousness you would infer from DeepMind's behavior?


Brent

On 7/25/2021 5:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
In my opinion this is the most impressive thing that Artificial 
Intelligence has done to date:


From The New York Times:

A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including every 
one made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug design.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share 
 



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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2v2BPqSbKyDSRiRCYAs9jAVRMtEAA5EfscX8nukJzkEw%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7dfaf60f-39a0-0717-fe70-7ced01128902%40verizon.net.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Terren Suydam]

This is indeed a historic moment for AI - protein folding is unbelievably
complex and to now have a tool that can deal with that complexity is of
inestimable value. But I do have these concerns:

   - It will be tempting to assume that DeepMind is correct on any given
   structure. But we don't have any easy way to test it. Of course, we can
   have a high degree of confidence that the predicted shape is accurate, and
   the value in that is already huge. But mistakes will be made based on this
   assumption.
   - This tool can be weaponized to create new and even highly-targeted
   poisons. It's not hard to imagine developing a poison that was only toxic
   for people of a certain race and then delivering it via virus. Who has
   access to DeepMind?
   - Are we comfortable with a corporation controlling something so
   powerful and with potential global security issues? This question will only
   get increasingly more relevant as new advances in AI are made. Can the
   world ever hope to regulate something so simultaneously powerful and
   cutting edge?

Terren


On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:56 AM John Clark  wrote:

> In my opinion this is the most impressive thing that Artificial Intelligence
> has done to date:
>
> From The New York Times:
>
> A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come
>
> DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including every one
> made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug design.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2v2BPqSbKyDSRiRCYAs9jAVRMtEAA5EfscX8nukJzkEw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9dE9dRujPyEXjsyf3NaKHFJaSDvCvJ4q5iAWsAnUfcdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[John Clark]

In my opinion this is the most impressive thing that Artificial Intelligence
has done to date:

>From The New York Times:

A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

DeepMind has given 3-D structure to 350,000 proteins, including every one
made by humans, promising a boon for medicine and drug design.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/technology/deepmind-ai-proteins-folding.html?smid=em-share

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2v2BPqSbKyDSRiRCYAs9jAVRMtEAA5EfscX8nukJzkEw%40mail.gmail.com.