RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] That's true. The visual perception process is altered after the experiment to favor recognition of objects seen in the photos. A recall test doesn't measure this effect. I don't know of a good way to measure the quantity of information learned. When you learn something is it stored as electrical state or are molecules created? Perhaps precise measurements of particular chemicals in certain regions could correlate to data differential. A problem though is that the data may be spread over a wide region making it difficult to measure. And you'd have to be able to measure chemicals in tissue structure though software could process out the non-applicable. Also you could estimate by calculating average data intake and estimate what is thrown away. So many bits are consumed, so many are tossed, the rest is stored, independent of recall. But a curious number in addition to average long term memory storage is MIPS. How many actual bit flips are occurring? This is where you have to be precise as even trace chemicals, light, temperature, effect this number. Though just a raw number won't tell you that much compared to say spatiotemporal MIPS density graphs. John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. A typical neural network simulation uses several bits per synapse. A Hopfield net implementation of an associative memory stores 0.15 bits per synapse. But cognitive models suggest the human brain stores .01 bits per synapse. (There are 10^15 synapses but human long term memory capacity is 10^9 bits). A cognitive model may only allocate so much data per synapse but the REAL data being stored in one biological synapse has got to be quite high. How much of it is unique among a group of synapses and how much of that affects the running biological cognitive entity grossly is in a degree particular to that brain. Any simulation that throws x bits per synapse IS a simulation and not a copy. A copied simulation could adapt itself to its new home if given enough latitude to model itself as it was in its biological host, if you are trying to copy a consciousness it depends on what it actually is, how much it can be simplified or molded to a digital transistor-like environment verses the rich unique electro-chemical environment of a biological brain. A simulation of a brain is a lossy compression since you can't get it all, each cell ultimately holds many gigs of data. You can try to get a functionally isomorphic compressed copy but due to the size you still going to have to average out much of it. A computer software simulation is going to be WAY more flexible and extensible. Biological electrochemical systems are, at least with current technology, not very changeable. But looking at the sophistication of natural molecular digital physics there has to a number of breakthroughs down the road... John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. A typical neural network simulation uses several bits per synapse. A Hopfield net implementation of an associative memory stores 0.15 bits per synapse. But cognitive models suggest the human brain stores .01 bits per synapse. (There are 10^15 synapses but human long term memory capacity is 10^9 bits). Sorry, I don't buy this at all. This makes profound assumptions about how information is stored in memory, averagng out the net storage and ignoring the immediate storage capacity. A typical synapse actually stores a great deal more than a fraction of a bit, as far as we can tell, but this information is stored in such a way that the system as a whole can actually use the information in a meaningful way. In that context, quoting 0.01 bits per synapse is a completely meaningless statement. Also, typical neural network simulations use more than a few bits as well. When I did a number of backprop NN studies in the early 90s, my networks had to use floating point numbers because the behavior of the net deteriorated badly if the numerical precision was reduced. This was especially important on long training runs or large datasets. Richard Loosemore --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. A typical neural network simulation uses several bits per synapse. A Hopfield net implementation of an associative memory stores 0.15 bits per synapse. But cognitive models suggest the human brain stores .01 bits per synapse. (There are 10^15 synapses but human long term memory capacity is 10^9 bits). Sorry, I don't buy this at all. This makes profound assumptions about how information is stored in memory, averagng out the net storage and ignoring the immediate storage capacity. A typical synapse actually stores a great deal more than a fraction of a bit, as far as we can tell, but this information is stored in such a way that the system as a whole can actually use the information in a meaningful way. In that context, quoting 0.01 bits per synapse is a completely meaningless statement. I was referring to Landauer's estimate of long term memory learning rate of about 2 bits per second. http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html This does not include procedural memory, things like visual perception and knowing how to walk. So 10^-6 bits is low. But how do we measure such things? I think my general point is that bits per second or bits per synapse is a valid measure if you care about something like an electrical signal line, but is just simply an incoherent way to talk about the memory capacity of the human brain. Saying 0.01 bits per synapse is no better than opening and closing one's mouth without saying anything. Richard Loosemore. --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: --- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. A typical neural network simulation uses several bits per synapse. A Hopfield net implementation of an associative memory stores 0.15 bits per synapse. But cognitive models suggest the human brain stores .01 bits per synapse. (There are 10^15 synapses but human long term memory capacity is 10^9 bits). Sorry, I don't buy this at all. This makes profound assumptions about how information is stored in memory, averagng out the net storage and ignoring the immediate storage capacity. A typical synapse actually stores a great deal more than a fraction of a bit, as far as we can tell, but this information is stored in such a way that the system as a whole can actually use the information in a meaningful way. In that context, quoting 0.01 bits per synapse is a completely meaningless statement. I was referring to Landauer's estimate of long term memory learning rate of about 2 bits per second. http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html This does not include procedural memory, things like visual perception and knowing how to walk. So 10^-6 bits is low. But how do we measure such things? Also, typical neural network simulations use more than a few bits as well. When I did a number of backprop NN studies in the early 90s, my networks had to use floating point numbers because the behavior of the net deteriorated badly if the numerical precision was reduced. This was especially important on long training runs or large datasets. That's what I meant by few. In the PAQ8 compressors I have to use at least 16 bits. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: I was referring to Landauer's estimate of long term memory learning rate of about 2 bits per second. http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html This does not include procedural memory, things like visual perception and knowing how to walk. So 10^-6 bits is low. But how do we measure such things? I think my general point is that bits per second or bits per synapse is a valid measure if you care about something like an electrical signal line, but is just simply an incoherent way to talk about the memory capacity of the human brain. Saying 0.01 bits per synapse is no better than opening and closing one's mouth without saying anything. Bits is a perfectly sensible measure of information. Memory can be measured using human recall tests, just as Shannon used human prediction tests to estimate the information capacity of natural language text. The question is important to anyone who needs to allocate a hardware budget for an AI design. [For those not familiar with Richard's style: once he disagrees with something he will dispute it to the bitter end in long, drawn out arguments, because nothing is more important than being right.] -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [For those not familiar with Richard's style: once he disagrees with something he will dispute it to the bitter end in long, drawn out arguments, because nothing is more important than being right.] What's the purpose for this comment? If the people here are intelligent enough to have meaningful discussions on a difficult topic, then they will be able to sort out for themselves the styles of others. Eric B. Ramsay --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [For those not familiar with Richard's style: once he disagrees with something he will dispute it to the bitter end in long, drawn out arguments, because nothing is more important than being right.] What's the purpose for this comment? If the people here are intelligent enough to have meaningful discussions on a difficult topic, then they will be able to sort out for themselves the styles of others. Sorry, he posted a similar comment about me on the AGI list. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By equivalent computation I mean one whose behavior is indistinguishable from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact simulation requires copying the implementation down to the neuron level, much less the molecular level. So how would you approach constructing such a model? I suppose a superset intelligence structure could analyze properties and behaviors of a brain and simulate it within itself. If it absorbed enough data it could reconstruct and eventually come up with something close. Well, nobody has solved the AI problem, much less the uploading problem. Consider the problem in stages: 1. The Turing test. 2. The personalized Turing test. The machine pretends to be you and the judges are people who know you well. 3. The planned, personalized Turing test. You are allowed to communicate with judges in advance, for example, to agree on a password. 4. The embodied, planned, personalized Turing test. Communication is not restricted to text. The machine is planted in the skull of your clone. Your friends and relatives have to decide who has the carbon-based brain. Level 4 should not require simulating every neuron and synapse. Without the constraints of slow, noisy neurons, we could use other algorithms. For example, low level visual processing such as edge and line detection would not need to be implemented as a 2-D array of identical filters. It could be implemented serially by scanning the retinal image with a window filter. Fine motor control would not need to be implemented by combining thousands of pulsing motor neurons to get a smooth average signal. The signal could be computed numerically. The brain has about 10^15 synapses, so a straightforward simulation at the neural level would require 10^15 bits of memory. But cognitive tests suggest humans have only about 10^9 bits of long term memory, suggesting that more compressed representation is possible. In any case, level 1 should be sufficient to argue convincingly that either consciousness can exist in machines, or that it doesn't in humans. These tests still though are very subjective, nothing exact. Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a bit an accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system. A typical neural network simulation uses several bits per synapse. A Hopfield net implementation of an associative memory stores 0.15 bits per synapse. But cognitive models suggest the human brain stores .01 bits per synapse. (There are 10^15 synapses but human long term memory capacity is 10^9 bits). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 28/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually a better way to do it as getting even just the molecules right is a wee bit formidable - you need a really powerful computer with lots of RAM. Take some DNA and grow a body double in software. Then create an interface from the biological brain to the software brain and then gradually kill off the biological brain forcing the consciousness into the software brain. The problem with this approach naturally is that to grow the brain in RAM requires astronomical resources. But ordinary off-the-shelf matter holds so much digital memory compared to modern computers. You have to convert matter into RAM somehow. For example one cell with DNA is how many gigs? And cells cost a dime a billion. But the problem is that molecular interaction is too slow and cluncky. Agreed, it would be *enormously* difficult getting a snapshot at the molecular level and then doing a simulation from this snapshot. But as a matter of principle, it should be possible. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually a better way to do it as getting even just the molecules right is a wee bit formidable - you need a really powerful computer with lots of RAM. Take some DNA and grow a body double in software. Then create an interface from the biological brain to the software brain and then gradually kill off the biological brain forcing the consciousness into the software brain. The problem with this approach naturally is that to grow the brain in RAM requires astronomical resources. But ordinary off-the-shelf matter holds so much digital memory compared to modern computers. You have to convert matter into RAM somehow. For example one cell with DNA is how many gigs? And cells cost a dime a billion. But the problem is that molecular interaction is too slow and cluncky. Agreed, it would be *enormously* difficult getting a snapshot at the molecular level and then doing a simulation from this snapshot. But as a matter of principle, it should be possible. And that is the whole point. You don't need to simulate the brain at the molecular level or even at the level of neurons. You just need to produce an equivalent computation. The whole point of such fine grained simulations is to counter arguments (like Penrose's) that qualia and consciousness cannot be explained by computation or even by physics. Penrose (like all humans) is reasoning with a brain that is a product of evolution, and therefore biased toward beliefs that favor survival of the species. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And that is the whole point. You don't need to simulate the brain at the molecular level or even at the level of neurons. You just need to produce an equivalent computation. The whole point of such fine grained simulations is to counter arguments (like Penrose's) that qualia and consciousness cannot be explained by computation or even by physics. Penrose (like all humans) is reasoning with a brain that is a product of evolution, and therefore biased toward beliefs that favor survival of the species. An equivalent computation will be some percentage of the complexity of a perfect molecular simulation. You can simplify the computation but you have to know what to simplify out and what to discard. Losing too much of the richness may produce a simulation that is like a scratchy audio recording of a philharmonic or probably even worse the simulated system will not function as a coherent entity, it'll just be contentious noise unless there is ample abetting by external control. But a non-molecular and non-neural simulation may require even more computational complexity than a direct model. Reformatting the consciousness to operate within another substrate without first understanding its natural substrate, ya, still may be the best choice due to technological limitations. John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 29/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By equivalent computation I mean one whose behavior is indistinguishable from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact simulation requires copying the implementation down to the neuron level, much less the molecular level. How do you explain the fact that cognition is exquisitely sensitive to changes at the molecular level? -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By equivalent computation I mean one whose behavior is indistinguishable from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact simulation requires copying the implementation down to the neuron level, much less the molecular level. How do you explain the fact that cognition is exquisitely sensitive to changes at the molecular level? In what way? Why can't you replace neurons with equivalent software? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By equivalent computation I mean one whose behavior is indistinguishable from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact simulation requires copying the implementation down to the neuron level, much less the molecular level. So how would you approach constructing such a model? I suppose a superset intelligence structure could analyze properties and behaviors of a brain and simulate it within itself. If it absorbed enough data it could reconstruct and eventually come up with something close. Well, nobody has solved the AI problem, much less the uploading problem. Consider the problem in stages: 1. The Turing test. 2. The personalized Turing test. The machine pretends to be you and the judges are people who know you well. 3. The planned, personalized Turing test. You are allowed to communicate with judges in advance, for example, to agree on a password. 4. The embodied, planned, personalized Turing test. Communication is not restricted to text. The machine is planted in the skull of your clone. Your friends and relatives have to decide who has the carbon-based brain. Level 4 should not require simulating every neuron and synapse. Without the constraints of slow, noisy neurons, we could use other algorithms. For example, low level visual processing such as edge and line detection would not need to be implemented as a 2-D array of identical filters. It could be implemented serially by scanning the retinal image with a window filter. Fine motor control would not need to be implemented by combining thousands of pulsing motor neurons to get a smooth average signal. The signal could be computed numerically. The brain has about 10^15 synapses, so a straightforward simulation at the neural level would require 10^15 bits of memory. But cognitive tests suggest humans have only about 10^9 bits of long term memory, suggesting that more compressed representation is possible. In any case, level 1 should be sufficient to argue convincingly that either consciousness can exist in machines, or that it doesn't in humans. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 29/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. The embodied, planned, personalized Turing test. Communication is not restricted to text. The machine is planted in the skull of your clone. Your friends and relatives have to decide who has the carbon-based brain. Level 4 should not require simulating every neuron and synapse. Without the constraints of slow, noisy neurons, we could use other algorithms. For example, low level visual processing such as edge and line detection would not need to be implemented as a 2-D array of identical filters. It could be implemented serially by scanning the retinal image with a window filter. Fine motor control would not need to be implemented by combining thousands of pulsing motor neurons to get a smooth average signal. The signal could be computed numerically. The brain has about 10^15 synapses, so a straightforward simulation at the neural level would require 10^15 bits of memory. But cognitive tests suggest humans have only about 10^9 bits of long term memory, suggesting that more compressed representation is possible. In any case, level 1 should be sufficient to argue convincingly that either consciousness can exist in machines, or that it doesn't in humans. I agree that it should be possible to simulate a brain on a computer, but I don't see how you can be so confident that you can throw away most of the details of brain structure with impunity. Tiny changes to neurons which make no difference to the anatomy or synaptic structure can have large effects on neuronal behaviour, and hence whole organism behaviour. You can't leave this sort of thing out of the model and hope that it will still match the original. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
--- Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that it should be possible to simulate a brain on a computer, but I don't see how you can be so confident that you can throw away most of the details of brain structure with impunity. Tiny changes to neurons which make no difference to the anatomy or synaptic structure can have large effects on neuronal behaviour, and hence whole organism behaviour. You can't leave this sort of thing out of the model and hope that it will still match the original. And people can lose millions of neurons without a noticeable effect. And removing a 0.1 micron chunk out of a CPU chip can cause it to fail, yet I can run the same programs on a chip with half as many transistors. Nobody knows how to make an artificial brain, but I am pretty confident that it is not necessary to preserve its structure to preserve its function. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 26/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an assumed simplification tendency going on that a human brain could be represented as a string of bits. It's easy to assume but I think that a more correct way to put it would be that it could be approximated. Exactly how close the approximation could theoretically get is entirely unknown. It's not entirely unknown. The maximum simulation fidelity that would be required is at the quantum level, which is still finite. But probably this would be overkill, since you remain you from moment to moment despite changes in your brain which are gross compared to the quantum level. Well if you spend some time theorizing a model of a brain digitizer that operates within known physics constraints it's not an easy task getting just the molecular and atomic digital data. You have to sample over a period of time and space using photons and particle beams. This in itself interferes with the sample. Then say this sample is reconstructed within a theoretically capable computer, the computer will most likely have to operate in slow time to simulate the physics of all the atoms and molecules as the computer is itself constrained by the speed of light. I'm going this route because I don't think that it is possible to get an instantaneous reading of all the atoms in a brain, you have to reconstruct over time and space. THEN, this is ignoring the subatomic properties and forget about quantum data sample digitization I think it is impossible to get an exact copy. So this leaves you with a reconstructed approximation. Exactly how much of this would be you is unknown because any subatomic and quantum properties of you are - started from scratch - this includes any macroscopic and environmental properties of subatomic and quantum and superatomic molecular state and positioning effects. And if the whole atomic level model is started from scratch in the simulator it could disintegrate or diverge as it is all forced fit together. Your copy is an approximation of which it is unknown how close it is actually of you or if you could be even put together accurately enough in the simulator. John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 27/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well if you spend some time theorizing a model of a brain digitizer that operates within known physics constraints it's not an easy task getting just the molecular and atomic digital data. You have to sample over a period of time and space using photons and particle beams. This in itself interferes with the sample. Then say this sample is reconstructed within a theoretically capable computer, the computer will most likely have to operate in slow time to simulate the physics of all the atoms and molecules as the computer is itself constrained by the speed of light. I'm going this route because I don't think that it is possible to get an instantaneous reading of all the atoms in a brain, you have to reconstruct over time and space. THEN, this is ignoring the subatomic properties and forget about quantum data sample digitization I think it is impossible to get an exact copy. So this leaves you with a reconstructed approximation. Exactly how much of this would be you is unknown because any subatomic and quantum properties of you are - started from scratch - this includes any macroscopic and environmental properties of subatomic and quantum and superatomic molecular state and positioning effects. And if the whole atomic level model is started from scratch in the simulator it could disintegrate or diverge as it is all forced fit together. Your copy is an approximation of which it is unknown how close it is actually of you or if you could be even put together accurately enough in the simulator. There are some who think that all you need to simulate a brain (and effectively copy a person) is to fix it, slice it up, and examine it under a microscope to determine the synaptic structure. This is almost certainly way too crude: consider the huge difference to cognition made by small molecules in tiny concentrations, such as LSD, which do no more than slightly alter the conformation of certain receptor proteins on neurons by binding to them non-covalently. On the other hand, it is equally implausible to suppose that you have to get it right down to the subatomic level, since otherwise cosmic rays or changing the isotope composition of the brain would have a major effect, and they clearly don't. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 28/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if you can rule out subatomic and quantum. There seems to be more and more evidence pointing to an amount of activity going on there. A small amount of cosmic rays don't have obvious immediate gross effects but interaction is occurring. Exactly how much of it would need to be replicated is not known. You could be missing out on important psi elements in consciousness which are taken for granted :) Either way it would be approximation unless there was some way using theoretical physics where an exact instantaneous snapshot could occur with the snapshot existing in precisely equivalent matter at that instant. Well, maybe you can't actually rule it out until you make a copy and see how close it has to be to think the same as the original, but I strongly suspect that getting it right down to the molecular level would be enough. Even if quantum effects are important in consciousness (and I don't think there is any clear evidence that this is so), these would be generic quantum effects, reproduced by reproducing the molecular structure. Transistors function using quantum level effects, but you don't need to replace a particular transistor with a perfect copy to have an identically functioning electronic device. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, maybe you can't actually rule it out until you make a copy and see how close it has to be to think the same as the original, but I strongly suspect that getting it right down to the molecular level would be enough. Even if quantum effects are important in consciousness (and I don't think there is any clear evidence that this is so), these would be generic quantum effects, reproduced by reproducing the molecular structure. Transistors function using quantum level effects, but you don't need to replace a particular transistor with a perfect copy to have an identically functioning electronic device. Actually a better way to do it as getting even just the molecules right is a wee bit formidable - you need a really powerful computer with lots of RAM. Take some DNA and grow a body double in software. Then create an interface from the biological brain to the software brain and then gradually kill off the biological brain forcing the consciousness into the software brain. The problem with this approach naturally is that to grow the brain in RAM requires astronomical resources. But ordinary off-the-shelf matter holds so much digital memory compared to modern computers. You have to convert matter into RAM somehow. For example one cell with DNA is how many gigs? And cells cost a dime a billion. But the problem is that molecular interaction is too slow and cluncky. John --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
There is an assumed simplification tendency going on that a human brain could be represented as a string of bits. It's easy to assume but I think that a more correct way to put it would be that it could be approximated. Exactly how close the approximation could theoretically get is entirely unknown. Though something could be achieved and even different forms of consciousness even ones that may be superior and more efficient and structured better than biological ones are there for discovery and I believe that there are potentially many variations. There is a tendency to think of levels of consciousness but perhaps this is wrong there are just variants some of which have stronger properties than others but common denominators are there IOW there are certain required properties for something to be classified as conscious. Consciousness seems not to be a point but an n dimensional continuous function. John From: Panu Horsmalahti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:08 PM To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment. If we assume 2x2x2 block of space floating somewhere, and would assign each element the value 1 if a single atom happens to be inside the subspace defined by the grid, and 0 if not. How many ways would there be to read this grid to create (2*2*2) = 8bits? The answer is 8! = 40 320. Lets then assume that a single atom can hold atleast 100 bits[1], there would be atleast 9 * 10^157 ways to read a single atom. This is just by calculating the different permutations, but we can also apply *any* mathematical calculation to our information reading algorithm. One would be the 'NOT' argument, which simply inverses our bits. This already doubles the amount of bits we can extract. If you take this further, we can read *all* different permutations of 100 bits from a single atom. For any string of bits, there exists at least one algorithm to calculate it from any input, since a single bit could be calculated into 10 if the bit is 0, and 11 if the bit is 1 or example. It must then be concluded that you can construct an algorithm/computer to read a static string of bits that defines any human state of consciousness (the string of bits could for example be calculated to match exactly those bits that would be in the memory of a computer that simulates a human brain) from pretty much any space or substrate. One opposition people have is that most of that complexity is actually in the algorithm itself, but that is irrelevant if it still creates consciousness. If we assume that our universe has some kind of blind physical law, that has as input the atoms/matter/energy in some space, and then searches through all the possible algorithms, it is bound to find atleast one that should create consciousness. It would be quite a miracle if this physical law would have a human bias, and would think like humans to only create consciousness when the computation is done in biological neurons. If you say that computers cannot be truly conscious, you're saying that the universe has some kind of magical human bias, which seems to be religious thinking to me. As I showed, some space can be interpreted as many different kinds of computation (actually a *massive* number), only our human perspective forces us to choose the interpretation that fits us. For example, if we create a computer that calculates bullet trajectories, we interpret it to do just that. But it can be interpreted 'in theory' to mean many other things, but we only care of the computation we designed it for. A small box of 3 atoms bouncing around can be interpreted to mean a massive number of different computations, in addition of simulation 3 atoms. As it is trivial to read a static string of bits to match some state of consciousness, some argue that it is not enough. They claim that a single state is not enough to create consciousness. However, to imagine a computer that not only creates the first string of bits in the consciousness computation, but also the second one (and possibly more ad infinitum) just makes the algorithm/computer more complex, but is not an argument against the thought experiment. 1. The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil _ singularity | http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ | http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 26/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an assumed simplification tendency going on that a human brain could be represented as a string of bits. It's easy to assume but I think that a more correct way to put it would be that it could be approximated. Exactly how close the approximation could theoretically get is entirely unknown. It's not entirely unknown. The maximum simulation fidelity that would be required is at the quantum level, which is still finite. But probably this would be overkill, since you remain you from moment to moment despite changes in your brain which are gross compared to the quantum level. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
The program that is isomorphically equivalent to raindrop positions inputted into the hypothetical computer implements a brain. I have a blinkey safety light on the back of my bicycle that goes on and off at 1 sec frequency. There exists a hypothetical computer that that takes a 1 sec on/off pulse as program instructions and implements my brain. This doesn't say much as the hypothetical computer is almost 100% equivalent to my brain. Where is the hypothetical computer? Still have to come up with it. But Lanier does scrape the surface of something bigger with all this. He is pointing to an intelligence in all things or some structure in all things that has some amount of potential intelligent as with potential energy in physics, or some effect with intelligence IOW the structure means something. And I found this interesting that he said - This means that software packaged as being non-intelligent is more likely to improve, because the designers will receive better critical feedback from users. The idea of intelligence removes some of the evolutionary pressure from software, by subtly indicating to users it is they, rather than the software, that should be changing. As it happens, machine decision making is already running our household finances to a scary degree, but it's doing so with a Wizard of Oz-like remote authority that keeps us from questioning it. I'm referring to the machines that calculate our credit ratings. Most of us have decided to change our habits in order to appeal to these machines. We have simplified ourselves in order to be comprehensible to simplistic data-bases, making them look smart and authoritative. Our demonstrated willingness to accommodate machines in this way is ample reason to adopt a standing bias against the idea of artificial intelligence. As it is true. There is a herding effect by AI and computers in general to be aware of. John From: Eric B. Ramsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:12 AM To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment. I came across an old Discover magazine this morning with yet another article by Lanier on his rainstorm thought experiment. After reading the article it occurred to me that what he is saying may be equivalent to: Imagine a sufficiently large computer that works according to the architecture of our ordinary PC's. In the space of Operating Systems (code interpreters), we can find an operating system such that it will run the input from the rainstorm such that it appears identical to a computer running a brain. If this is true, then functionalism is not affected since we must not forget to combine program + OS. Thus the rainstorm by itself has no emergent properties. Eric B. Ramsay _ singularity | http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ | http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
If we assume 2x2x2 block of space floating somewhere, and would assign each element the value 1 if a single atom happens to be inside the subspace defined by the grid, and 0 if not. How many ways would there be to read this grid to create (2*2*2) = 8bits? The answer is 8! = 40 320. Lets then assume that a single atom can hold atleast 100 bits[1], there would be atleast 9 * 10^157 ways to read a single atom. This is just by calculating the different permutations, but we can also apply *any* mathematical calculation to our information reading algorithm. One would be the 'NOT' argument, which simply inverses our bits. This already doubles the amount of bits we can extract. If you take this further, we can read *all* different permutations of 100 bits from a single atom. For any string of bits, there exists at least one algorithm to calculate it from any input, since a single bit could be calculated into 10 if the bit is 0, and 11 if the bit is 1 or example. It must then be concluded that you can construct an algorithm/computer to read a static string of bits that defines any human state of consciousness (the string of bits could for example be calculated to match exactly those bits that would be in the memory of a computer that simulates a human brain) from pretty much any space or substrate. One opposition people have is that most of that complexity is actually in the algorithm itself, but that is irrelevant if it still creates consciousness. If we assume that our universe has some kind of blind physical law, that has as input the atoms/matter/energy in some space, and then searches through all the possible algorithms, it is bound to find atleast one that should create consciousness. It would be quite a miracle if this physical law would have a human bias, and would think like humans to only create consciousness when the computation is done in biological neurons. If you say that computers cannot be truly conscious, you're saying that the universe has some kind of magical human bias, which seems to be religious thinking to me. As I showed, some space can be interpreted as many different kinds of computation (actually a *massive* number), only our human perspective forces us to choose the interpretation that fits us. For example, if we create a computer that calculates bullet trajectories, we interpret it to do just that. But it can be interpreted 'in theory' to mean many other things, but we only care of the computation we designed it for. A small box of 3 atoms bouncing around can be interpreted to mean a massive number of different computations, in addition of simulation 3 atoms. As it is trivial to read a static string of bits to match some state of consciousness, some argue that it is not enough. They claim that a single state is not enough to create consciousness. However, to imagine a computer that not only creates the first string of bits in the consciousness computation, but also the second one (and possibly more ad infinitum) just makes the algorithm/computer more complex, but is not an argument against the thought experiment. 1. The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 24/02/2008, Joshua Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric B. Ramsay wrote: Imagine a sufficiently large computer that works according to the architecture of our ordinary PC's. In the space of Operating Systems (code interpreters), we can find an operating system such that it will run the input from the rainstorm such that it appears identical to a computer running a brain To find this operating system with reasonable resources would require intelligence -- the exact intelligence which Lanier is looking for but failing to identify. Yes it would require intelligence to find it, but your mental state is not contingent on someone else finding it. Nor is this an argument against functionalism. Consider Arithmetical Functionalism: the theory that a calculation is multiply realisable, in any device that has the right functional organisation. But this might mean that somewhere in the vastness of the universe, a calculation such as 2 + 2 = 4 might be being implemented purely by chance: in the causal relationship between atoms in an interstellar gas cloud, for example. This is clearly ridiculous, so *either* Arithmetical Functionalism is false *or* it is impossible that a calculation will be implemented accidentally. Right? -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consider Arithmetical Functionalism: the theory that a calculation is multiply realisable, in any device that has the right functional organisation. But this might mean that somewhere in the vastness of the universe, a calculation such as 2 + 2 = 4 might be being implemented purely by chance: in the causal relationship between atoms in an interstellar gas cloud, for example. This is clearly ridiculous, so *either* Arithmetical Functionalism is false *or* it is impossible that a calculation will be implemented accidentally. Right? I feel a little uncomfortable when people say things like 'because Occam's razor is true' or 'otherwise computationalism is false' or 'consciousness doesn't exist'. As these notions are usually quite loaded and ambiguous, and main issues with them may revolve around the question of what they actually mean, it's far from clear what is being asserted when they are declared to be 'true' or 'false'. Does 2+2=4 make a sound when there is no one around? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/02/2008, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does 2+2=4 make a sound when there is no one around? Yes, but it is of no consequence since no one can hear it. However, if we believe that computation can result in consciousness, then by definition there *is* someone to hear it: itself. But it's still of no 'consequence', no? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment.
On 24/02/2008, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does 2+2=4 make a sound when there is no one around? Yes, but it is of no consequence since no one can hear it. However, if we believe that computation can result in consciousness, then by definition there *is* someone to hear it: itself. But it's still of no 'consequence', no? Of no consequence as far as anything at the level of the substrate of its implementation is concerned, no. In order to find such a computation hidden in noise we would have to do the computation all over again, using conventional means. But unless we require that the computation interact with us, that should make no difference to *it*. If the computation simulates an inputless virtual reality with conscious inhabitants, they should be no less conscious for the fact that we can't talk to them. -- Stathis Papaioannou --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
