Matt Mahoney wrote:
Autobliss...
Imagine that there is another human language which is the same as
English, just the pain/pleasure related words have the opposite
meaning. Then consider what would that mean for your Autobliss.
My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trent Waddington wrote:
Apparently, it was Einstein who said that if you can't explain it to
your grandmother then you don't understand it.
That was Richard Feynman
When? I don't really know who said it.. but everyone else
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns.
IMO, pain is more like a data with the potential to cause disorder in
hard-wired algorithms. I'm not saying this fully covers it but it's
IMO already out of
Trent,
Feynman's page on wikipedia has it as: If you can't explain something
to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it. but
Feynman reportedly said it in a number of ways, including the
grandmother variant. I learned about it when taking physics classes a
while ago so I don't
From: Trent Waddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For
example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it
is stuck in the eye with a needle
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain.
Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have just hit my Do
not bother debating with list.
You can decide anything you like -- but that doesn't make it true.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain.
Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have
just hit my Do not bother debating with list.
You can decide anything you like -- but that
doesn't make it true.
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no
volition. By what definitions does it feel pain?
Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My
definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no
volition. By what definitions does it feel pain?
Now you are making up new rules to decide that
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, this can be done, and has largely been done already ... though
cutting and pasting or summarizing the relevant literature in emails would
not a productive use of time
Apparently, it was Einstein who said that if
Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel
pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that
learns. There is no other requirement.
I made up no rules. I merely asked a question. You are the one who makes a
definition like this and then says
I am just trying to point out the contradictions in Mark's sweeping
generalizations about the treatment of intelligent machines
Huh? That's what you're trying to do? Normally people do that by pointing to
two different statements and arguing that they contradict each other. Not by
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, in
fifty years, I think it is quite possible we will be able to say with some
confidence if certain machine intelligences we design are conscious nor not,
and whether their pain is as real as the pain of another type of
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it won't, because people are free to decide what makes pain real.
What? You've got to be kidding . . . . What makes
pain real is how the sufferer reacts to it -- not some
abstract wishful thinking that we use to justify our
Matt,
First, it is not clear people are free to decide what makes pain real,
at least subjectively real. If I zap you will a horrible electric shock of
the type Sadam Hussein might have used when he was the chief
interrogator/torturer of Iraq's Baathist party, it is not clear exactly how
much
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, it is not clear people
are free to decide what makes pain real, at least
subjectively real.
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For example, a
scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it is
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For example, a
scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it is stuck in the
eye with a needle (the standard way to draw blood) even though it
There are procedures in place for experimenting on humans. And the
biologies of people and animals are orthogonal! Much of this will be
simulated soon
On 11/17/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Autobliss responds to pain by changing its behavior to
make it less likely. Please explain how this is different
from human suffering. And don't tell me its because one
is human and the other is a simple program, because...
Why
Matt,
With regard to your first point I largely agree with you. I would, however,
qualify it with the fact that many of us find it hard not to sympathize with
people or animals, such as a dog, under certain circumstances when we
directly sense outward manifestations that they are experiencing
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel
pain. For example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does
not feel pain when it is stuck in the eye
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are procedures in place for experimenting on humans. And the
biologies of people and animals are orthogonal! Much of this will be
simulated soon
When we start simulating people, there will be ethical debates about that. And
Before you can start searching for consciousness, you need to describe
precisely what you are looking for.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve
Matt,
Matt,
Although different people (or even the same people at different times)
define consciousness differently, there as a considerable degree of overlap.
I think a good enough definition to get started with is that which we humans
feel our minds are directly aware of, including
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a good enough definition to get started with is that which we humans
feel our minds are directly aware of, including awareness of senses,
emotions, perceptions, and thoughts. (This would include much of what
Richard
[so who's near Berkeley to report back?]:
UC Berkeley Cognitive Science Students Association presents:
Pain and the Brain
Wednesday, November 19th
5101 Tolman Hall
6 pm - 8 pm
UCSF neuroscienctist Dr. Howard Fields and Berkeley philosopher John Searle
represent some of the most
Trent,
No, it is not easy to implement.
I am talking about the type of awareness that we humans have when we say we
are conscious of something. Some of the studies we have on the neural
correlates of consciousness indicate humans only report being consciously
aware of things that receive
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am talking about the type of awareness that we humans have when we say we
are conscious of something.
You must talk to different humans to me. I've not had anyone use the
word conscious around me in decades.. and usually
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a good enough definition
to get started with is that which we humans feel our minds are directly aware
of, including awareness of senses, emotions, perceptions, and thoughts.
You are describing episodic memory, the ability to recall
This is a subject on which I have done a lot of talking to myself, since as
Richard's paper implies, our own subjective experiences are among the most
real things to us. And we have the most direct access to our own
consciousness, and is since of richness, simultaneity, and meaning. I am
also
See the post I just sent to Matt Mahoney. You have a much greater access to
your own memory than just high level episodic memory. Although your
memories of such experience are more limited than their actual experience,
you can remember qualities about them, that include their sense of richness,
31 matches
Mail list logo
