Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
>> theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
>> things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
>> universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,
>
>
> They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something that
> makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of galaxies
> together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes up 69%
> of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to accelerate.
> And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter and energy
> that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.
>
> There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum
> Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is
> 10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory and
> observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to say we
> really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is almost as
> confusing.
>
>> >
>> If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't
>>
>> matter?
>
>
> Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully,
> consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed
> intelligently.

I know that your position is that information processing is
nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
This "explanation" begs the question already.

Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
is the kind that generates consciousness.

Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of
consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about it),
so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero. You make it worse by
introducing ill-defined concepts.

> What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining
> how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made in just the
> last few years.

Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network
models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of
magnitude more computational power and training data that we have now.

Progress is being made, but it has been very slow. It's a hard problem.

I've worked in this field both in academia and industry, for what it's worth.

>>> The study of intelligence, now that's important!
>>
>>
>> >
>> That is a statement of faith. Gizmo worshiping.
>
>
> At least 3 times a week for the last 5 years somebody on this list has
> accused me of being religious, apparently in the hope that I'll burst into
> tears and cry myself to sleep. It's not going to happen,

I can't talk for the others, but I have no interest in making you feel bad.
I'm just pointing out dogmatic thinking.

>>
>> >
>> Yes, it's important in
>>
>> a sense. I too am interested in having medical breakthroughs, freedom
>>
>> from labour and all the nice things that AI can bring.
>
>
> It's important even if you're only interested in philosophical problems,
> such as why did Evolution bother to make conscious animals at all.

Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We know
nothing about consciousness.

>> I don't quite understand why an omnipotent being
>>
>>  would "want" anything, He should already have it.  Nevertheless the
>>
>>  religious say God does want certain things and they know exactly
>> precisely
>>
>>  what they are and they insist on telling us about it; and they also
>> insist
>>
>> God can't get what He wants on His own, we have to help the poor fellow
>>
>>  achieve His aims.
>>
>> >
>> You are describing Abrahamic religions. I don't believe in them either.
>
>
> I don't think the
>  Hindu religion
> is significantly less stupid. There are some forms of Buddhism and Taoism
> that aren't stupid but they aren't religions, they don't say anything about
> God, don't say faith is a virtue, and don't even claim they are revealing
> something new about the world, instead they are doing something much more
> modest, they are giving personal advice; they are saying this is a way to be
> happy. Not the only way, maybe not the best way, just a way.

Ok, so you only recognise something as a religion if you think it's
stupid. Not hard to win an argument with that move...

>> >
>> I think you are not interested in what Bruno has to say. There's
>> nothing wrong with that, but 

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/20/2017 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark  wrote:

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:




Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.



As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,


They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something that
makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of galaxies
together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes up 69%
of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to accelerate.
And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter and energy
that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.

There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is
10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory and
observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to say we
really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is almost as
confusing.


If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't

matter?


Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully,
consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed
intelligently.

I know that your position is that information processing is
nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
This "explanation" begs the question already.

Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
is the kind that generates consciousness.


No, intelligent processing it that which leads to useful activity toward 
a goal.  That's why consciousness has to be consciousness OF a world in 
which action is possible.  It only exists in a context.


For me, the interesting question is whether there can be intelligence 
without consciousness, or more accurately can there be intelligence 
which is conscious in a different way.  We can see from Big Blue, 
Watson, and deep neural nets that there can be intelligence based 
different kinds of information processing.  I suspect this means there 
would be different kinds of consciousness associated with them - but how 
could we know and what would it mean?  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.


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: From Atheism to Islam

[John Clark]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017  Telmo Menezes  wrote:


> ​> ​
> So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
> ​ ​
> way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
>

​More precisely what I am saying is ​
consciousness is the
​ ​
way
​ data feels like when it is being processed.
​

> ​> ​
> This "explanation" begs the question
>

​If the chain of "why" questions extends far enough the question is *always*
begged because there are only 2 possibilities, ​
​the chain of why questions extends ​
​to infinity and never ends, or it ends in a brute fact and there is no
"why" to explain it.​

​ ​You may not find either possibility to be entirely satisfactory but
reality doesn't care if you like it or not, that's just the way things are.


> ​> ​
> Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently".


​That's not all, there is also ​
the issue of defining
​"​defining". I said it before I'll say it again, definitions are
derivative, real knowledge comes from examples not definitions.


> ​> ​
> What
> ​ ​
> does that even mean?


​Mean? That word is unfamiliar to me, so please use other words to explain
the word "mean". And then use more words to explain the words you used to
explain the word "mean". And then use yet more words to explain the words
you used to explain the word "mean". And then use even more words to
explain the words you used to explain the words you used to explain the
word "mean". And then.

So why isn't language just random noise? It's certainly not because of
definitions, it's because of examples from the real world. I point to a
roughly cylindrical  food and say "banana"  and children get the idea. In
fact if you ask a child "what is a banana?" they won't say "a berry
produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus
Musa", instead they  will just point to one.


> ​> ​
> Where do you draw the line between intelligent
> ​ ​
> and non-intelligent processing?


​Not everything is separated by ​a line, some things are separated by a
fuzzy blob. A 70 pound man is undoubtedly thin, a 700 pound man is
undoubtedly fat, and yet there is no sharp line between fat and thin.
There is not a exact instant where day turns into night, and yet there is a
difference between day and night that is as clear as, well, day and night.


> ​> ​
> Let me guess: intelligent processing
> ​ ​
> is the kind that generates consciousness.
>

​No you guessed wrong. I judge that intelligent processing
​ ​is the sort of thing that if done by a man Telmo Menezes would make a
noise with his mouth that sounds like "that man is smart". And yes it's a
judgement call and judgement can be wrong, but it's the only tool we have.


> ​> ​
> Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of
> ​ ​
> consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about it),
> ​ ​
> so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero.


​I agree, so why is it so many on this list want to talk about nothing
except consciousness when all such discussions lead precisely nowhere? I'll
tell you why, because it's easy, no consciousness theory can every be
proven wrong. Intelligence theories on the other hand are devilishly hard
and that's why few want to talk about those even though they do lead
somewhere.   ​



> >
>> ​>​
>> What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining
>> ​
>>  how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made in just
>> the
>> last few years.
>
>
> ​> ​
> Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network
> models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of
> magnitude more computational power and training data that we have now.
>

​Even if improved hardware were the entire answer (it's not) how do you
figure that's not enormous progress?​

​> ​
> Progress is being made, but it has been very slow.


​If progress in AI is slow it's because
they​

​keep moving the goal posts and say that true AI is whatever computers
aren't good at *YET*.

​B​
a
ck in 1997​

​after a computer became the world's best chess player chess grand master
Hans Berliner
​ said:


"
What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the
par excellence of intellectual activity
​.​
Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called
Go"

​In 2008 ​
Milton N. Bradley
​ said:​

​"​
In sharp contrast
​ [to chess]​
 the best computer Go programs are still mired at just beyond an advanced
beginner's level
​", and to play GO "​ immense
scale makes the application of "standard" techniques infeasible even on
supercomputers.
​[Go] ​
Requires a real breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence which has not yet
been achieved.
​"

http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html​

But things have changed since 2008, back then intelligence was needed to
win at GO but in 2016 a computer became the world's best GO player, so that
means GO no longer requires intelligence.

​> ​
>