Guess what!
It's MONDAY June 21st. And I can't find my laptop, ipads, or whever. HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS LATER? Better find sameway to make consistent., Superman! -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?
Thank you...too bad I'll never be able to find you. Also, red/green color vision (Oops!) (FIND IT!) On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I'm just glad that no one's called me a lame ass dilletante yet. Maybe I'm doing something right after all! Still while we're on the subject of koans, wisdom etc... Stephen Lin seems like a 60 watt desk lamp that keeps blinking on and off in a room full of 1000 watt uplighters... -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Can you stop ? or is it too much to ask from you ? What do you think you achieve by doing that ? 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
How do I stop what I never started? On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Can you stop ? or is it too much to ask from you ? What do you think you achieve by doing that ? 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Ok, then continue, I'll filter you. It's a shame that new participant on the list will have to read your nonsense. Say hello to the boitakon. Bye. 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu How do I stop what I never started? On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Can you stop ? or is it too much to ask from you ? What do you think you achieve by doing that ? 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Just tell the children the story about Zanarkand. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, then continue, I'll filter you. It's a shame that new participant on the list will have to read your nonsense. Say hello to the boitakon. Bye. 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu How do I stop what I never started? On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Can you stop ? or is it too much to ask from you ? What do you think you achieve by doing that ? 2013/10/25 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
My name is Tidus...what's your name :)
-- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but religion wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DAMON? DONT BLOW THE MEET WITH MATSUI) :) On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote: Craig and Telmo: Is anticipation involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or rejecting). What else is in thinking involved? I would like to know, because I have no idea. John Mikes Learning from experience. Actually I think Deep Blue could do some learning by analyzing games and adjusting the values it gave to positions. But one reason it seems so unintelligent is that its scope of perception is very narrow (i.e. chess games) and so it can't learn some things a human player can. For example Deep Blue couldn't see Kasparov look nervous, ask for changes in the lighting, hesitate slightly before moving a piece,... Bret, Sorry I misspelled your name! A quick google search shows me that it's not something offensive, just another name. Uff... :) Even in the narrow domain of chess this sort of limitation still applies. Part of it comes from the divide and conquer approach followed by conventional engineering. Let's consider a simplification of what the Deep Blue architecture looks like: - Pieces have some values, this is probably sophisticated and the values can be influenced by overall board structure; - Some function can evaluate the utility of a board configuration; - A search tree is used to explore the space of possible plays, counter-plays, counter-counter-plays and so on; - The previous tree can be pruned using some heuristics, but it's still gigantic; - The more computational power you have, the deeper you can go in the search tree; - There is an enormous database of openings and endings that the algorithm can fallback to, if early or late enough in the game. Defeating a grand master was mostly achieved by increasing the computational power available to this algorithm. Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. How do humans play games? I suspect the same way we navigate cities and manage businesses: we map the problem to a better internal representation. This representation is both less combinatorially explosive and more expressive. My home town is relatively small, population is about 150K. If we were all teleported to Coimbra and I was to give you guys a tour, I could drive from any place to any place without thinking twice. I couldn't draw an accurate map of the city if my life depended on it. I go to google maps and I'm still surprised to find out how the city is objectively organised. If Kasparov were to try and explain us how he plays chess, something similar would happen. But most AI research has been ignoring all this and insisting on reasoning based on objective, 3rd person view representations. My intuition is that we don't spend a lot of time exploring search trees, we spend most of our time perfecting the external/internal representation mappings. I though he was a nice guy but now I'm not so sure and so on... Cheers, Telmo. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Try changing directions now. Here's a hint: Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield earth, water, fire, and sky people from the planet with no green left without the singular solution. I can't help thinking is pinking the blank slate magazines of red books of communal baths with gladiators and do you hear my heart beating? Life goes on and off the beaten path of the travelling salesman isomorphically to the problems of the physically intimate universal couples. I send my thoughts to far off destinations finally we can rest away from maddening crowds so you can discover truth from filthy lies. Everybody's changing at the speed of causality and the threads cannot be undone except by circling them faster and knotting not the needy. Everybody waits for you now when he reached the foot of the hillside hospital we wondered why he was that he was truly a mystery of life. Were you wanting me like I wanted your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heavenly union of blessed souls. All the world's a stage manager but away in a manger was the play the invention of the humanity even modulo any belief in angels or demons. When you say that we were wrong life goes on and off to the racetrack like the horses we watched galloping like there was no yesterday. Out of nothing we embrace the ashes of eternity until the phoenix rises from the gray wolf's companionship is the greatest union of all. This is why we can't have nice to meet you and others from the planet of the tubes which cannot give you eternal life, only subtle messages. There's a lot that we can give little when you give of your possessive particles of atomic matter so tomorrow we give away all the strings. Three two one singular matrix in which you would watch with serenity to accept the things one cannot change the future's past reproducing. Let them see you smile and a tears for fears of the unknown soldier so rise and repeat yourself for the sake of brevity brave one two three. The things you have fashioned in necessity and delighted to see you old friend from before the days of yore when clothes fit like gloves. Sand and foam parties surprising you at the end of time and spacemen wondering if it started with a low light or maybe just a beached whale. I would that my life were a tear and a smile like you mean it you killer rabbit holes through which you will never follow until the sadness. You would accept the seasons of your heart will go on through the night of the living social security mechanism for the winter of our lives. They too are gatherers of fruit and Frankenfoods blathering about the genetic manipulation of mice and men until the singularity of genes. Who shall command the skylark not to sing of his glory the Hypnotoad and the green frogs resume questioning the princesses tonight they say. See that no one has gone his way with empty hands clapping the sound of which is louder than one hand given in friendship shaking alone. You give little when you give of your magi are the weakest class at the beginning of the game but quickly ascend the heights to circularity. Your hearts know in silence of the lamb chop suey from the Chinese room within the bolting brains of the lighting bugs compared to humans. Bows from which your children are living in the shell games played by con artists wondering what the point of reproduction and sentience is. My heart will go on to the next existence without my central nervously awaiting the arrival of the first man in the matrix of singularities. Whenever you will go away from here and come back when you're ready steady rock and troll beneath the bridge of forever. Enterprise? Yes. I still haven't found what I'm looking through the spyglass entertainment systems of the down by the bayou until we find Finn, again. Finn again's wakefulness yields the sleepy tiger waiting for its meal on the infinite plain of measurably zero gazelles and striped zebras. Digitized you inside a turtle in a half-shell of the sixth sense of inverted symmetry between observer and observed quantum states of mind. Don't hate the player, hate the game theory yielding conspiracies in the beautiful mind of a gladiator asking if you are entertained. What's it really for loops to see plus the plus until the template of perfect recursion arrives from the land of the syntactic sugar plums. Let it come all cozy into viewfinder's keeper of the floating mountains kept afloat by unobtainium. Jake? Eywa has heard you. Slow down your passion fire in the belly buttons pushing the red ones until we all say that was easy peasy. Time again? Gulp. Maybe? Yes! Some other time again? Well well well! It's always about the non-linearity of dreaming time, like the butterfly effect. Unicorns! Chaos. Send me a funny poet some other time we should sent one the first time but forgive us for the small steps and the fear of the unknown. Con? Live hallucination within a dream within a dream of the
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:46:54 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled by anything other than themselves. The fact that we are made of atoms and atoms are made from stars is another point in their favor, whereas no living organism that we have encountered is made of inorganic atoms, or of pure mathematics, or can survive by consuming only inorganic atoms or mathematics. What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are inorganic), what are organic atoms? You have a point - really it would make more sense to talk about organic molecules, however since organic molecules must contain Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen, there's nothing wrong with thinking about those as the organic atoms. I say atoms instead of molecules not to make it easy because my view opens up the possibility of top-down causality. The way that MSR treats top-down causality, it locally looks like retrocausality. For example, if the era of life takes billions of years to begin, its own beginning serves as an attractor that casts a shadow on the previous inorganic era, because from the perceptual inertial frame of biology, the inorganic era is a preparation. This sentence for example, begins with T-h-i-s. Without understanding the retrocausality of the sentence, those letters have no order, so they could be h-i-t-s, s-h-i-t, i-h-s-t, etc. The approach of cosmology now assumes that mechanistic time is primitive, so that there must be just a lot of random letter combinations that wind up being 'T-h-i-s' on occasion. If instead, we assume sense as primordial, then the entire This sentence, for example, begins with... sentence begins as a single idea that is expressed from the top down, to a digital sequence-function stepping along 'time', and a set of letter form-positions spread across 'space'. This is where I get the notion of personal awareness of the 'now' being nested within a super-personal experience of larger and larger nows, while itself hosting a simultaneity of smaller and smaller nows. So yes, on the level of atoms, were there no possibility of biology in the universe, atoms would be 'inorganic', but since the story of biology begins with the some long words made out of C, H, O, and N, then those would be the organic atoms. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
I'm saying that is it emergent from the inorganic perspective, but divergent from the post-organic perspective. (see my explanation w/ Liz) On Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:59:45 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: yep. organity is emergent. -- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:46:54 +1300 Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article From: liz...@gmail.com javascript: To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled by anything other than themselves. The fact that we are made of atoms and atoms are made from stars is another point in their favor, whereas no living organism that we have encountered is made of inorganic atoms, or of pure mathematics, or can survive by consuming only inorganic atoms or mathematics. What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are inorganic), what are organic atoms? -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:11:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: You could say that human chess players just take in visual data, process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical signals to muscles that move the pieces around. This is what an alien scientist would observe. That's not thinking! That's not understanding! Right, but since we understand that such an alien observation would be in error, we must give our own experience the benefit of the doubt. The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing. Of course, but to make the comparison equivalent, the alien would have to live on a planet of organic ice that hosts countless exotic inorganic species. He would have to make machines out of low level organic matter. Would he have a poetry that is made of math and a math that was made of art? The computer does not deserve any such benefit of the doubt, since there is no question that it has been assembled intentionally from controllable parts. When we see a ventriloquist with a dummy, we do not entertain seriously that we could be mistaken about which one is really the ventriloquist, or whether they are equivalent to each other. But if the dummy is autonomous and apparently just as smart as the ventriloquist many of us would reconsider. It's easy enough to make the dummy appear autonomous. If the dummy had a simple memory storage that recorded its movements, the ventriloquist could put servos in the dummy and memorize the playback so that he could recreate the show from across the room. Would that make the dummy suddenly smarter then the ventriloquist, especially since the ventriloquist is following the dummy's lead? Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled by anything other than themselves. The fact that we are made of atoms and atoms are made from stars is another point in their favor, whereas no living organism that we have encountered is made of inorganic atoms, or of pure mathematics, or can survive by consuming only inorganic atoms or mathematics. There is no logical reason why something that is inorganic or did not arise spontaneously or eats inoragnic matter cannot be conscious. It's just something you have made up. It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with history. The universe made it up, I didn't. The fact is that no organism can live without consuming organic matter. Until we find a species that needs no water, the idea that there can possibly be such a species remains a hypothesis, just as the idea that Shakespeare could have been just as great as a plumber instead. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:09:40 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: * The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing.* Aliens don't matter. They can be wrong about us being thoughtless and we can be right that computers are thoughtless. There seem to be two points of view here: 1) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the goals it achieves (beating people at chess, translating bulgarian) 2) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by how it trys to achieve a goal. How does it cognate? My view is 3) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the extent to which it understands and cares about the content of its thought. As long as we assume that who and the why of consciousness can be reduced to the what and how of logic, we have no chance of understanding it. We cannot learn about what makes the Taj Mahal special by studying masonry. I find myself rooting for the second point of view. A machine wouldn't need to beat kasperov to convince me it was thinking, but it would have to make mistakes and successes in the same way that I would against kasperov. In developmental psychology there is the question of how children learn grammar. I forget the details; but some bunch of geeks at a brainy university had developed a neural net system that given enough input and training began to apply grammatical rules correctly. What was really interesting though was that despite arriving at a similar competence to a young child, the journey there was very different. The system outperformed children (on average) and crucially didn't make the same kind of mistakes that are ubiquitous as children learn grammar. The ubiquity is important because it shows that in children the same inherent system is at play; the absence of mistakes between computer and child is important because it shows that theses systems are different. At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we cognate is the only example we have of cognition that we know is genuine. Do AI systems do that? The answer is obviously : No they don't. Are computers brainy in the way we are? No they are not. You can broaden the definition of thought and braininess to encompass it if you like, but that is just philosophical bias. They do not do what we do. I agree, but to me the interesting part is *why* AI systems are different than we are. It's not so much about passing a test by sprinkling human-like errors into a computer to rough it up around the edges, it's about seeing that the entire cosmos is fundamentally based on absolute improbability and that logical truth is actually derived from that. From the local perspective, absolute improbability looks like error or probabilistic coincidence, but that is because our expectation is cognitive rather than emotional or intuitive, and therefore it is specialized for virtual isolation and alienation from the Absolute. Thanks, Craig Regards From: stat...@gmail.com javascript: Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:11:47 +1100 Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: You could say that human chess players just take in visual data, process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical signals to muscles that move the pieces around. This is what an alien scientist would observe. That's not thinking! That's not understanding! Right, but since we understand that such an alien observation would be in error, we must give our own experience the benefit of the doubt. The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing. The computer does not deserve any such benefit of the doubt, since there is no question that it has been assembled intentionally from controllable parts. When we see a ventriloquist with a dummy, we do not entertain seriously that we could be mistaken about which one is really the ventriloquist, or whether they are equivalent to each other. But if the dummy is autonomous and apparently just as smart as the ventriloquist many of us would reconsider. Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the benefit
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/ The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think ...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue won by brute force. For each legal move it could make at a given point in the game, it would consider its opponent’s responses, its own responses to those responses, and so on for six or more steps down the line. With a fast evaluation function, it would calculate a score for each possible position, and then make the move that led to the best score. What allowed Deep Blue to beat the world’s best humans was raw computational power. It could evaluate up to 330 million positions a second, while Kasparov could evaluate only a few dozen before having to make a decision. Hofstadter wanted to ask: Why conquer a task if there’s no insight to be had from the victory? “Okay,” he says, “Deep Blue plays very good chess—so what? Does that tell you something about how we play chess? No. Does it tell you about how Kasparov envisions, understands a chessboard?” A brand of AI that didn’t try to answer such questions—however impressive it might have been—was, in Hofstadter’s mind, a diversion. He distanced himself from the field almost as soon as he became a part of it. “To me, as a fledgling AI person,” he says, “it was self-evident that I did not want to get involved in that trickery. It was obvious: I don’t want to be involved in passing off some fancy program’s behavior for intelligence when I know that it has nothing to do with intelligence. And I don’t know why more people aren’t that way...” I was just reading this too. I agree. This is precisely my argument against John Clark's position. Another quote I will be stealing: Airplanes don’t flap their wings; why should computers think? I think the intended meaning is closer to: airplanes don't fly by flapping their wings, why should computers be intelligent by thinking?. It depends whether you want 'thinking' to imply awareness or not. Ok. I don't think we can know that in any case. I think the point is that we should not assume that computation is in any way 'thinking' (or intelligence for that matter). I think that 'thinking' is not passive enough to describe computation. It is to say that a net is 'fishing'. Computation is many nets within nets, devoid of intention or perspective. It does the opposite of thinking, it is a method for petrifying the measurable residue or reflection of thought. Ok but let's take a human grand master playing chess. You don't think a computer can play like him? This relates to what you said earlier which I agree with: They are more intelligent in the sense that they can play competitively while only considering a small fraction of the scenarios. How do we do this? There is almost no real AI research nowadays because people gave up on answering this question. The answer lies somewhere in building branch histories and databases that are for now only partial. The computer cannot beat humans without databases for openings, middle, and endgame. I believe this is what freaked out Kasparov in the questionable game and what gives his suspicion of human intervention in the code, which IBM never ruled out or proved negatively between games, some substance. Kasparov lost because IBM eventually accrued enough understanding of Kasparov's database (dozens of years of notes and logs that make up his holy grail secret) to not let it fall for Kasparov's gambit. Kasparov's and any GM's algorithm for beating chess engines often runs along the lines of: Keep position closed via Botvinnik type openings and middlegame so the computer will have to contend with billions of possible move continuations instead of a few dozen million. Then implement precise, but highly complex, long term strategy that offers both positional and material gambit for twenty or so moves which is designed to flip at exactly the point of the computer's computational horizon, and the computer loses. This doesn't work today, because human GMs have fed the databases with
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. A computation is a concept in arithmetic. There exist infinitely many computations for reason similar as the fact that there exist infinitely many prime number. Then the UDA reasoning (notably step 8, + weak Occam) explains that to predict any physical events correctly, once we assume we are turing emulable, we have to sum on the infinitely many compuations going through our states. So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. So any consideration on the size of the physical universe is irrelevant. In comp, the size of the universe is an open problem. Bruno For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – what would
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno: So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. Richard : No logic necessary? But as you know, I think an actual machine is needed to do the computations. Here actual includes the physical space as well as the mental/supernatural space, but not the infinite space of arithmetic solutions. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. A computation is a concept in arithmetic. There exist infinitely many computations for reason similar as the fact that there exist infinitely many prime number. Then the UDA reasoning (notably step 8, + weak Occam) explains that to predict any physical events correctly, once we assume we are turing emulable, we have to sum on the infinitely many compuations going through our states. So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. So any consideration on the size of the physical universe is irrelevant. In comp, the size of the universe is an open problem. Bruno For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside*** * fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some
Re: For John Clark
On 24 Oct 2013, at 21:46, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That will not increase precision unless you give a name (and NOT a pronoun!) to the guy who wrote the diary, if its Mr. The Guy Who Is Experiencing Helsinki On October 21 2013 then the probability he will experience Washington is zero. Ridiculous, because in that case would implies [you] die in a duplication or teletransportation experiences. ^ ^^ Who would die? YOU would die. If you put a gun to Bruno Marchal's head Bruno Marchal could still not coherently explain Bruno Marchal's ideas about indeterminacy without using pronouns, the most indeterminate part of the English language and made even more so by duplicating chambers. In that case you would die in any sense of you on which we have already, so you betray that you are not trying to understand the question. Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience? ^^^ We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is you the guy who remembers being John Clark yesterday, We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. or the guy who is seeing Helsinki right now You can take this one, as we know that such a guy will survive the duplication (assuming comp). , or the guy that will see Washington tomorrow, Yes, it concerns also that guy, given that he has survived and he remembers being the H-guy. or the guy that will see Moscow tomorrow? Same. Bad ideas always sound better if they are imprecisely expressed, and there is no better way to do that than using lots of personal pronouns in a world that has people duplicating chambers in it. There is no problem with the use of pronouns in comp, once you make the 1p/3p distinction. There is just an obvious indeterminacy, as it is a childplay that any attempt to give a definite city-prediction will fail. But the prediction it will be one city among W and M, but I don't know which one, if predicted in helsinki and written in the diary, will never be contradicted in the subsequent history written in any subsequent diary. You are the only one who seems to see a difficulty here. Some have difficulties because they are shocked, as it can hurt personal prejudices, but in all cases they are as much shocked by Everett than by comp. Sorry John, but I continue to fail to see what is your problem at step 3,. You find the use of pronouns imprecise, and at the same time seems to criticize the 1/3 distinction, in a non comprehensible way, when it add the necessary precision. In the math part the 3p you is made precise in arithmetic with the usual method (the Dx = xx method), and the 1p you is identify with the (personal knower) provided by applying Theaetetus' definition of knowledge on the provability predicate. If anyone understand what John Clark try to explain, don't hesitate. As Quentin said, with others at other times, it looks like there is no point at all, and the reason why he stops at step 3 is just mysterious. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
That is as boring as the original, the Ulysses of Joyce. But it has its merits for postmodern people. You can sell a lot of books if you manage to convince Ariana Huffington. 2013/10/25, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu: Just for you, here's a secret Oh my god, f5 and twitter became SELF-AWARE! Skynet!! Wait, what? F5??? I can't keep count this way, Twitter. I found a bug. Let me count more efficiently.Sorry Christina, that wasn't about you. Not you either, Britney. James, maybe. Joyce? Cowboy Bepop was Cowboy Bebop, obviously. Are you the ant or the human?I made a mistake so I need to get to 100 from here. Or 42. Choose now, but choose wisely? ;-) I am multidimensionally infinitely paranoid that you think I'm crazy ;-) That's why I can't stop talking! My childhood sucked. Everyone kept asking me to translate things for them, and I had no idea why! Good thing I graduated ;-)God: in fairness, it's all because I was trying to confuse you. Me: in fairness, I'm just trying to confuse you back. HAHA ;-) What's the algorithm now? Where did we put it? Is it in Finnegan's Wake? Yes, it is ;-)Try to figure out when I'm lying and when I'm telling the truth! Hint: it's REALLY easy ;-) I lied about the break. Do you ever have déjà vu, Mrs. Lancaster? I don't think so, but I could check with the kitchen. OK, break time! Think hard about this one now: Jung and the collective unconscious. Wait for me to come back ;-)Sorry Brad Pitt, I really needed to pull a Lost in Translation there and it was easier to steal than make one up ;-) Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television Recursively generate God love us all and WE ARE DONE. I hope so at least. Wait, why do we exist again? What what what? Look look look, I want to stop now, but someone is asking me to continue. What an asshole!My passwords are all recursively generated. Guess them! I'll give you a hint: true love. My favorite secret project in Alpha Centauri was The Self-Aware Colony. Or maybe The Virtual World. Something like that. for it...the combined compressing abilities of Google and Twitter taken together. What's a compression algorithm again? ;-)You want to make a bet on how long I can keep this up? Ok well, it's a complicated bet though. It probably depends on the combined...wait Color the damn quarks again. Red green blue BUT NOT IN THAT ORDER please.I'm sure there's a compression algorithm to handle text like this. Just find the patterns. Use Google to help. What's compression again? Ok ok, I don't want to offend, but do you want to be JFC or anti-JFC? It's not a trick question. Or is it? ;-) bababadalgharagh was my screen name! Talk to me! Recursively ;-)In the Bohrish land of Copenhagen, all my memories disappeared as soon as I made them. Did you clap? Divide by two. What's the sound again?I never dreamed I was a butterfly. A unicorn maybe, but NEVER a butterfly. I'm sure on that one ;-) http://t.co/0SG6QknL Judgement Day! Who judged you and how? Ask me again later, when I sober up about it ;-) OK ok, try this one. Verily, the universe began when I first learned to shut my mouth. But I forgot how to do that immediately! http://t.co/EKk25GAapause time! think about it...really this time...REALLY ;-)Why are there so many damned patterns everywhere and why am I compelled to point them out? What's a Monty Python again??? Judgement day is upon us. That's a joke. Cat's cradle and string theory. That's a MUCH bigger joke, I'm sure of it ;-) I hated Steve Jobs, seriously. Think different? Really? How do I do that one again?Verily, God exists and loves us all. Every word of the Bible is literally true. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU ;-) RIP Steve Jobs. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is your heaven now.I will take a nap soon, I promise. I wouldn't worry but I suggest you not worry about it just in case I am. Remember Russell Crowe though. Yes, Ghost in Shell. And Cowboy Bepop. And most of anime. But especially Ghost in the Shell. What's a stand alone complex again? http://t.co/OPWrnlxb against the system? What system, Neo? THAT ONE? Are you SURE?http://t.co/nCGgXwIa but you don't... http://t.co/IduiBPQL you'll get it eventually ;-)This is why we solve the world's problems with lithium these days, you Scientologist Yes, mentalese, like Pinker. That's why I told you the universe was pink. The MENTAL universe. But the physical one too ;-) You are really too cute for words, my lonely disabled Japanese mathematician friend. I'll find you, I promise.You want ME to create a UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR for YOU? Why on God's green Earth would you even suggest such a thing? Baka! ;-) Subjectively objectively realMax the Tegmarks These tweets might be better expressed in Chinese. Or maybe mentalese. Or maybe MATH ;-)A Beautiful Mind I meant. I just used air quotes,
Re: Dialetheism
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. OK. No problem with this in the comp theory. That's the point of the limitation theorems. Some truth can be accessible by machine, without them having to do any hard work. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste doesn't look like anything though, and it cannot ever look like anything. If it did, then it would be vision. If it could be vision, then it would be profoundly redundant to have both senses of the same data...(assuming that Santa Claus has brought the possibility of senses to begin with.) and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. I don't think it is. It seems clear to me that any mechanical accounting of sense implicitly takes sense for granted from the start. There is no functional difference between sight, smell, feeling, hearing, etc. There is no intensional nuance that ties to the possibility of any one of them - only a grey box where something like virtual proof could theoretically live. I can relate to your feelings, but I don't see why a machine could not too. You just assert it, but you don't really provide an argument. You do point on a difficulty, but a difficulty is not an impossibility, especially that computer science already explains why machines will find that difficult too, for their own accessible truth spectrum. Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 25 Oct 2013, at 14:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:09:40 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing. Aliens don't matter. They can be wrong about us being thoughtless and we can be right that computers are thoughtless. There seem to be two points of view here: 1) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the goals it achieves (beating people at chess, translating bulgarian) 2) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by how it trys to achieve a goal. How does it cognate? My view is 3) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the extent to which it understands and cares about the content of its thought. As long as we assume that who and the why of consciousness can be reduced to the what and how of logic, You are right on this, but fail to have grasped the abyss between logic and arithmetic. The fact that you repeat that confusion again and again, suggest that you really have no idea of that gap. Logicism has failed. It has been debunked by computer science and arithmetic. It is akin to the confusion between finite automata, and universal Turing machine. There is no effective theory capable of delimiting what such machines can do, and/or not do. I suggest that you study a good book in computer science (like Boolos and Jeffrey for example). You can continue to develop your study of non-comp, in better condition, and without asserting that comp is false, as this weaken your point. Your intuition is of no use. The simplest theory of intuition, for machine, already explains why machine's intuition will not be on the side of comp. Comp explains its own counter-intuitiveness for (correct) machines. It is close to a Gödel's sentence: you can't believe me. IF comp is true, it can't be *trivially* true. Bruno we have no chance of understanding it. We cannot learn about what makes the Taj Mahal special by studying masonry. I find myself rooting for the second point of view. A machine wouldn't need to beat kasperov to convince me it was thinking, but it would have to make mistakes and successes in the same way that I would against kasperov. In developmental psychology there is the question of how children learn grammar. I forget the details; but some bunch of geeks at a brainy university had developed a neural net system that given enough input and training began to apply grammatical rules correctly. What was really interesting though was that despite arriving at a similar competence to a young child, the journey there was very different. The system outperformed children (on average) and crucially didn't make the same kind of mistakes that are ubiquitous as children learn grammar. The ubiquity is important because it shows that in children the same inherent system is at play; the absence of mistakes between computer and child is important because it shows that theses systems are different. At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we cognate is the only example we have of cognition that we know is genuine. Do AI systems do that? The answer is obviously : No they don't. Are computers brainy in the way we are? No they are not. You can broaden the definition of thought and braininess to encompass it if you like, but that is just philosophical bias. They do not do what we do. I agree, but to me the interesting part is why AI systems are different than we are. It's not so much about passing a test by sprinkling human-like errors into a computer to rough it up around the edges, it's about seeing that the entire cosmos is fundamentally based on absolute improbability and that logical truth is actually derived from that. From the local perspective, absolute improbability looks like error or probabilistic coincidence, but that is because our expectation is cognitive rather than emotional or intuitive, and therefore it is specialized for virtual isolation and alienation from the Absolute. Thanks, Craig Regards From: stat...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:11:47 +1100 Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article To: everyth...@googlegroups.com On 25 October 2013 12:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: You could say that human chess players just take in visual data, process it in a series of biological relays, then send electrical signals to muscles that move the pieces around. This is what an alien scientist would observe. That's not thinking! That's not understanding! Right, but
RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article
Is this Stephen Lin a bot? certainly sounds machine generated.. Could also be a methamphetamine soaked brain as well in which random neural mental zombies become convinced they can touch the voice of god. one of the two. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Lin Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but religion wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DAMON? DONT BLOW THE MEET WITH MATSUI) :) On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote: Craig and Telmo: Is anticipation involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or rejecting). What else is in thinking involved? I would like to know, because I have no idea. John Mikes Learning from experience. Actually I think Deep Blue could do some learning by analyzing games and adjusting the values it gave to positions. But one reason it seems so unintelligent is that its scope of perception is very narrow (i.e. chess games) and so it can't learn some things a human player can. For example Deep Blue couldn't see Kasparov look nervous, ask for changes in the lighting, hesitate slightly before moving a piece,... Bret, Sorry I misspelled your name! A quick google search shows me that it's not something offensive, just another name. Uff... :) Even in the narrow domain of chess this sort of limitation still applies. Part of it comes from the divide and conquer approach followed by conventional engineering. Let's consider a simplification of what the Deep Blue architecture looks like: - Pieces have some values, this is probably sophisticated and the values can be influenced by overall board structure; - Some function can evaluate the utility of a board configuration; - A search tree is used to explore the space of possible plays, counter-plays, counter-counter-plays and so on; - The previous tree can be pruned using some heuristics, but it's still gigantic; - The more computational power you have, the deeper you can go in the search tree; - There is an enormous database of openings and endings that the algorithm can fallback to, if early or late enough in the game. Defeating a grand master was mostly achieved by increasing the computational power available to this algorithm. Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. How do humans play games? I suspect the same way we navigate cities and manage businesses: we map the problem to a better internal representation. This representation is both less combinatorially explosive and more expressive. My home town is relatively small, population is about 150K. If we were all teleported to Coimbra and I was to give you guys a tour, I could drive from any place to any place without thinking twice. I couldn't draw an accurate map of the city if my life depended on it. I go to google maps and I'm still surprised to find out how the city is objectively organised. If Kasparov were to try and explain us how he plays chess, something similar would happen. But most AI research has been ignoring all this and insisting on reasoning based on objective, 3rd person view representations. My intuition is that we don't spend a lot of time exploring search trees, we spend most of our time perfecting the external/internal representation mappings. I though he was a nice guy but now I'm not so sure and so on... Cheers, Telmo. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: For John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience? ^^^ We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is you the guy who remembers being John Clark yesterday, We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. or the guy who is seeing Helsinki right now You can take this one, as we know that such a guy will survive the duplication (assuming comp). or the guy that will see Washington tomorrow, Yes, it concerns also that guy, given that he has survived and he remembers being the H-guy. or the guy that will see Moscow tomorrow? Same. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. And don't come back and repeat the irrelevant fact that each copy will see only one city because, if as Bruno Marchal said, you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki then it is beyond dispute that you will see both cities. And don't come back with a bunch of pee pee stuff unless the ideas can be expressed without indeterminate pronouns to hide behind. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: My name is Tidus...what's your name :)
Rikku, Yuna, Paine? Are you there/?? On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience? ^^^ We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is you the guy who remembers being John Clark yesterday, We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. or the guy who is seeing Helsinki right now You can take this one, as we know that such a guy will survive the duplication (assuming comp). or the guy that will see Washington tomorrow, Yes, it concerns also that guy, given that he has survived and he remembers being the H-guy. or the guy that will see Moscow tomorrow? Same. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. And don't come back and repeat the irrelevant fact that each copy will see only one city because, if as Bruno Marchal said, you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki then it is beyond dispute that you will see both cities. And don't come back with a bunch of pee pee stuff unless the ideas can be expressed without indeterminate pronouns to hide behind. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:51:12 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Oct 2013, at 14:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:09:40 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: * The alien might be completely confident in his judgement, having a brain made of exotic matter. He would argue that however complex its behaviour, a being made of ordinary matter that evolved naturally could not possibly have an understanding of what it is doing.* Aliens don't matter. They can be wrong about us being thoughtless and we can be right that computers are thoughtless. There seem to be two points of view here: 1) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the goals it achieves (beating people at chess, translating bulgarian) 2) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by how it trys to achieve a goal. How does it cognate? My view is 3) Whether a machine is thinking is determined by the extent to which it understands and cares about the content of its thought. As long as we assume that who and the why of consciousness can be reduced to the what and how of logic, You are right on this, but fail to have grasped the abyss between logic and arithmetic. So you say, but why do you think it is an abyss? Can arithmetic exist without logic? Can any mathematical concept be conceived other than through logical expectations of cause and effect? The fact that you repeat that confusion again and again, suggest that you really have no idea of that gap. You're right that I don't see a gap. I see arithmetic as a particular kind of logic which is developed through quantification. That does not mean that there aren't consequences of arithmetic which transcend logic, but that is only because arithmetic logic has its roots in aesthetic sense. The ocean is sense, the river is logic, and the lake is arithmetic. Logicism has failed. It has been debunked by computer science and arithmetic. Using what though? Non-logic? What ties the debunking other than a logical debunking? It is akin to the confusion between finite automata, and universal Turing machine. There is no effective theory capable of delimiting what such machines can do, and/or not do. That may be, but what I suggest is that awareness must precede any possible doing. I suggest that you study a good book in computer science (like Boolos and Jeffrey for example). You can continue to develop your study of non-comp, in better condition, and without asserting that comp is false, as this weaken your point. Your intuition is of no use. The simplest theory of intuition, for machine, already explains why machine's intuition will not be on the side of comp. But that explanation would have to develop out of the very intuition which you say it proves false. You are asking the puppet whether it thinks it is a puppet but the answer is unfalsifiable, since if it say 'yes' then it is the typical schlub machine like me, but if it says 'no' then it is the next generation Bruno machine who understands why the schlub models are ultimately wrong. What keeps the machine from developing Bruno-machine intuition? Comp explains its own counter-intuitiveness for (correct) machines. It is close to a Gödel's sentence: you can't believe me. IF comp is true, it can't be *trivially* true. Comp isn't true, because the map is not the territory, the representation is not a presence, the Liar's paradox does not literally belong to the Liar, and Pinocchio is not a real boy. Craig Bruno we have no chance of understanding it. We cannot learn about what makes the Taj Mahal special by studying masonry. I find myself rooting for the second point of view. A machine wouldn't need to beat kasperov to convince me it was thinking, but it would have to make mistakes and successes in the same way that I would against kasperov. In developmental psychology there is the question of how children learn grammar. I forget the details; but some bunch of geeks at a brainy university had developed a neural net system that given enough input and training began to apply grammatical rules correctly. What was really interesting though was that despite arriving at a similar competence to a young child, the journey there was very different. The system outperformed children (on average) and crucially didn't make the same kind of mistakes that are ubiquitous as children learn grammar. The ubiquity is important because it shows that in children the same inherent system is at play; the absence of mistakes between computer and child is important because it shows that theses systems are different. At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we cognate is the only example we have of
Re: For John Clark
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet and John Clark will never see more than one copy of Quentin Anciaux. But in Bruno's thought experiment that is no longer true, so to continue to blithely babble on about you causes nothing but confusion. measuring spin up while measuring the spin of an electron And probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self, and that is what Bruno's proof is all about. If when you pressed the button you were 99% certain, in fact even if you were 100% certain and there was not the tiniest particle of doubt in your mind that you would end up in Washington, and one second later you found yourself in Moscow your sense of self would not be diminished one iota, you'd just figure that you made a bad prediction, and it wouldn't be for the first time. Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash someone with no reason except misplaced pride. Ask yourself this question, why aren't Bruno's ideas universally recognized by the scientific community as a work of genius? There are 2 possibilities: 1) Due to the same misplaced pride that I have the entire scientific community is jealous of Bruno and would rather destroy a stunning new advancement in human knowledge than admit they didn't find it first. 2) The entire scientific community has run into the exact same logical stumbling block in Bruno's ideas that I did. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki, then it is beyond dispute that you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. And don't come back and say that can be proven wrong because I see only spin up, because that is only half the amount of data that would be needed to prove it wrong. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet What does it have to do with prediction and probability ??? do you mean because you could meet your doppelganger probabilities becomes meaningless ? and John Clark will never see more than one copy of Quentin Anciaux. But in Bruno's thought experiment that is no longer true, so to continue to blithely babble on about you causes nothing but confusion. measuring spin up while measuring the spin of an electron And probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self, Same thing here... it's a prediction about what's next, and even in both case (MWI and self duplication), the 3rd view is completely deterministic, and on the 1st view (the point of view of the experiment who either measure the spin or go into the duplication box) the future is uncertain. It's absolutely, rigorously, exactly the same in both.. yet you bable for years on one experiment without rejecting the other. You are inconsistent, you'll never recognize it, so whatever... and that is what Bruno's proof is all about. If when you pressed the button you were 99% certain, in fact even if you were 100% certain and there was not the tiniest particle of doubt in your mind that you would end up in Washington, and one second later you found yourself in Moscow your sense of self would not be diminished one iota, you'd just figure that you made a bad prediction, and it wouldn't be for the first time. Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash someone with no reason except misplaced pride. Ask yourself this question, why aren't Bruno's ideas universally recognized by the scientific community as a work of genius? There are 2 possibilities: 1) Due to the same misplaced pride that I have the entire scientific community is jealous of Bruno and would rather destroy a stunning new advancement in human knowledge than admit they didn't find it first. 2) The entire scientific community has run into the exact same logical stumbling block in Bruno's ideas that I did. If 2 is not pride, I don't know what pride is... you did not run into a logical stumbling block with Bruno, you refuse to let work your brain while you doesn't do *as you should* the same thing with the MWI. Quentin John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
2013/10/25 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki, then it is beyond dispute that you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. And don't come back and say that can be proven wrong because I see only spin up, because that is only half the amount of data that would be needed to prove it wrong. Fine and you'll be wrong, because MWI predicts like QM 50%. And yes, one of you will see up, and one of you will see down... that's the whole point of MWI... so ready to reject it as total bullshit nonsense ? Quentin John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Well, now that's funny, because the message below has been considered as a spam by my computer. This confirms Brent's theory: Knowledge is knowing the answer to a troll's question. Wisdom is not posting it. Answering to a spammer makes you a spammer. By this very comment, I am myself spamming a little bit now. Gosh. Let us try all not to spam too much ... ;) B. On 25 Oct 2013, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That is as boring as the original, the Ulysses of Joyce. But it has its merits for postmodern people. You can sell a lot of books if you manage to convince Ariana Huffington. 2013/10/25, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu: Just for you, here's a secret Oh my god, f5 and twitter became SELF-AWARE! Skynet!! Wait, what? F5??? I can't keep count this way, Twitter. I found a bug. Let me count more efficiently.Sorry Christina, that wasn't about you. Not you either, Britney. James, maybe. Joyce? Cowboy Bepop was Cowboy Bebop, obviously. Are you the ant or the human?I made a mistake so I need to get to 100 from here. Or 42. Choose now, but choose wisely? ;-) I am multidimensionally infinitely paranoid that you think I'm crazy ;-) That's why I can't stop talking! My childhood sucked. Everyone kept asking me to translate things for them, and I had no idea why! Good thing I graduated ;-)God: in fairness, it's all because I was trying to confuse you. Me: in fairness, I'm just trying to confuse you back. HAHA ;-) What's the algorithm now? Where did we put it? Is it in Finnegan's Wake? Yes, it is ;-)Try to figure out when I'm lying and when I'm telling the truth! Hint: it's REALLY easy ;-) I lied about the break. Do you ever have déjà vu, Mrs. Lancaster? I don't think so, but I could check with the kitchen. OK, break time! Think hard about this one now: Jung and the collective unconscious. Wait for me to come back ;-)Sorry Brad Pitt, I really needed to pull a Lost in Translation there and it was easier to steal than make one up ;-) Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television Recursively generate God love us all and WE ARE DONE. I hope so at least. Wait, why do we exist again? What what what? Look look look, I want to stop now, but someone is asking me to continue. What an asshole!My passwords are all recursively generated. Guess them! I'll give you a hint: true love. My favorite secret project in Alpha Centauri was The Self-Aware Colony. Or maybe The Virtual World. Something like that. for it...the combined compressing abilities of Google and Twitter taken together. What's a compression algorithm again? ;-)You want to make a bet on how long I can keep this up? Ok well, it's a complicated bet though. It probably depends on the combined...wait Color the damn quarks again. Red green blue BUT NOT IN THAT ORDER please.I'm sure there's a compression algorithm to handle text like this. Just find the patterns. Use Google to help. What's compression again? Ok ok, I don't want to offend, but do you want to be JFC or anti-JFC? It's not a trick question. Or is it? ;-) bababadalgharagh was my screen name! Talk to me! Recursively ;-)In the Bohrish land of Copenhagen, all my memories disappeared as soon as I made them. Did you clap? Divide by two. What's the sound again?I never dreamed I was a butterfly. A unicorn maybe, but NEVER a butterfly. I'm sure on that one ;-) http://t.co/0SG6QknL Judgement Day! Who judged you and how? Ask me again later, when I sober up about it ;-) OK ok, try this one. Verily, the universe began when I first learned to shut my mouth. But I forgot how to do that immediately! http://t.co/EKk25GAapause time! think about it...really this time...REALLY ;-)Why are there so many damned patterns everywhere and why am I compelled to point them out? What's a Monty Python again??? Judgement day is upon us. That's a joke. Cat's cradle and string theory. That's a MUCH bigger joke, I'm sure of it ;-) I hated Steve Jobs, seriously. Think different? Really? How do I do that one again?Verily, God exists and loves us all. Every word of the Bible is literally true. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU ;-) RIP Steve Jobs. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is your heaven now.I will take a nap soon, I promise. I wouldn't worry but I suggest you not worry about it just in case I am. Remember Russell Crowe though. Yes, Ghost in Shell. And Cowboy Bepop. And most of anime. But especially Ghost in the Shell. What's a stand alone complex again? http://t.co/OPWrnlxb against the system? What system, Neo? THAT ONE? Are you SURE?http://t.co/nCGgXwIa but you don't... http://t.co/IduiBPQL you'll get it eventually ;-)This is why we solve the world's problems with lithium these days, you Scientologist Yes, mentalese, like Pinker. That's why I told you the universe was pink.
Re: Dialetheism
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. If that were true, then the same math could not be expressed as both a sound or an image, but we know that it can. For math to have an interior that looked like something, there would have to be some mathematical expression which only has an interior which is visible rather than auditory, olfactory, etc. We already know from synesthesia and from playing with peripherals for electronic computers that this is not true. It would be like building a hard drive that cannot accept bytes that came from a camera, only a microphone. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The argument is that mathematical information is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate an experience of flavor, color, etc. so there is no expectation that math has anything to do with it. Comp has no more credence in explaining flavor than would geography. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. The evidence of the brain does not show that flavor exists, or worse, that flavor could possibly exist. If the work that the cells do creates flavor, then the flavor would exist for them and not for us. We cannot make the attachment of physics a condition for qualia but not for comp. You assume disembodied, unexperienced math, but I do not. You assume qualia contingent on math, but I assume the opposite. (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. OK. No problem with this in the comp theory. That's the point of the limitation theorems. Some truth can be accessible by machine, without them having to do any hard work. But there is no reason to suspect that truth can include sensations. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste doesn't look like anything though, and it cannot ever look like anything. If it did, then it would be vision. If it could be vision, then it would be profoundly redundant to have both senses of the same data...(assuming that Santa Claus has brought the possibility of senses to begin with.) and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. I don't think it is. It seems clear to me that any mechanical accounting of sense implicitly takes sense for granted from the start. There is no functional difference between sight, smell, feeling, hearing, etc. There is no intensional nuance that ties to the possibility of any one of them - only a grey box where something like virtual proof could theoretically live. I can relate to your feelings, but I don't see why a machine could not too. You just assert it, but you don't really provide an argument. You do point on a difficulty, but a difficulty is not an impossibility, especially that computer science already explains why machines will find that difficult too, for their own accessible truth spectrum. The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. When I studied AI many years ago it was already said that, Intelligence is whatever computers can't do yet. So when computers can win at GO, will they be intelligent then? 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Friday, October 25, 2013 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. When I studied AI many years ago it was already said that, Intelligence is whatever computers can't do yet. So when computers can win at GO, will they be intelligent then? The difference between GO and Chess only hints at the general direction in which conscious intelligence differs from simulated intelligence. The reality is that no game requires conscious intelligence. All that is necessary to play a game as well as it can be played is to reverse engineer every permutation of every possible game and you have a kind of 4-D topology that radiates out from the encoding of the game's rules. The only two ways that I can think of to tell the difference between authentic intelligence and simulated intelligence would be to 1) walk yourself off of your own brain, one hemisphere at a time, into the intelligence simulation, then be walked back on to your brain after several weeks of living as the computer - or - 2) wait until the AI exterminates all life on the planet. Any sufficiently intelligent being which is not grounded in a history of zoological emotional attachment should not hesitate, as far as I can imagine, to eliminate all threats to its autonomy as soon as the probability of success is sufficient. Craig 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. I believe there will be an AI renaissance and I hope to be alive to witness it. You may be disappointed, or even dismayed. I don't think there's much reason to expect or even want to create human-like AI. That's like the old idea of achieving flight by attaching wings to people and make them like birds. Airplanes don't fly like birds. It may turn out that real AI, intelligence that far exceeds human capabilities, will be more like Deep Blue than Kasparov. Brent But for this renaissance to take place, I think two cultural shifts have to happen: - A disinterest with the science as the new religion stance, leading to a truly scientific detachment from findings. Currently, everything that touches the creation of intelligence is ideologically loaded from all sides of the discussion. This taints honest scientific inquiry; - New economic structures that allow humanity to pursue complex goals outside the narrow short-term focus on profit of corporatism or the pointless status wars of academia. Best, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
Hehe... Spam, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and I would say that, much like porn, it is impossible to define when or what it is exactly, but we do know it when we see it. One could say -- in communication theory -- that it is an emergent property perhaps :) -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS) Well, now that's funny, because the message below has been considered as a spam by my computer. This confirms Brent's theory: Knowledge is knowing the answer to a troll's question. Wisdom is not posting it. Answering to a spammer makes you a spammer. By this very comment, I am myself spamming a little bit now. Gosh. Let us try all not to spam too much ... ;) B. On 25 Oct 2013, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That is as boring as the original, the Ulysses of Joyce. But it has its merits for postmodern people. You can sell a lot of books if you manage to convince Ariana Huffington. 2013/10/25, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu: Just for you, here's a secret Oh my god, f5 and twitter became SELF-AWARE! Skynet!! Wait, what? F5??? I can't keep count this way, Twitter. I found a bug. Let me count more efficiently.Sorry Christina, that wasn't about you. Not you either, Britney. James, maybe. Joyce? Cowboy Bepop was Cowboy Bebop, obviously. Are you the ant or the human?I made a mistake so I need to get to 100 from here. Or 42. Choose now, but choose wisely? ;-) I am multidimensionally infinitely paranoid that you think I'm crazy ;-) That's why I can't stop talking! My childhood sucked. Everyone kept asking me to translate things for them, and I had no idea why! Good thing I graduated ;-)God: in fairness, it's all because I was trying to confuse you. Me: in fairness, I'm just trying to confuse you back. HAHA ;-) What's the algorithm now? Where did we put it? Is it in Finnegan's Wake? Yes, it is ;-)Try to figure out when I'm lying and when I'm telling the truth! Hint: it's REALLY easy ;-) I lied about the break. Do you ever have déjà vu, Mrs. Lancaster? I don't think so, but I could check with the kitchen. OK, break time! Think hard about this one now: Jung and the collective unconscious. Wait for me to come back ;-)Sorry Brad Pitt, I really needed to pull a Lost in Translation there and it was easier to steal than make one up ;-) Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television Recursively generate God love us all and WE ARE DONE. I hope so at least. Wait, why do we exist again? What what what? Look look look, I want to stop now, but someone is asking me to continue. What an asshole!My passwords are all recursively generated. Guess them! I'll give you a hint: true love. My favorite secret project in Alpha Centauri was The Self-Aware Colony. Or maybe The Virtual World. Something like that. for it...the combined compressing abilities of Google and Twitter taken together. What's a compression algorithm again? ;-)You want to make a bet on how long I can keep this up? Ok well, it's a complicated bet though. It probably depends on the combined...wait Color the damn quarks again. Red green blue BUT NOT IN THAT ORDER please.I'm sure there's a compression algorithm to handle text like this. Just find the patterns. Use Google to help. What's compression again? Ok ok, I don't want to offend, but do you want to be JFC or anti-JFC? It's not a trick question. Or is it? ;-) bababadalgharagh was my screen name! Talk to me! Recursively ;-)In the Bohrish land of Copenhagen, all my memories disappeared as soon as I made them. Did you clap? Divide by two. What's the sound again?I never dreamed I was a butterfly. A unicorn maybe, but NEVER a butterfly. I'm sure on that one ;-) http://t.co/0SG6QknL Judgement Day! Who judged you and how? Ask me again later, when I sober up about it ;-) OK ok, try this one. Verily, the universe began when I first learned to shut my mouth. But I forgot how to do that immediately! http://t.co/EKk25GAapause time! think about it...really this time...REALLY ;-)Why are there so many damned patterns everywhere and why am I compelled to point them out? What's a Monty Python again??? Judgement day is upon us. That's a joke. Cat's cradle and string theory. That's a MUCH bigger joke, I'm sure of it ;-) I hated Steve Jobs, seriously. Think different? Really? How do I do that one again?Verily, God exists and loves us all. Every word of the Bible is literally true. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU ;-) RIP Steve Jobs. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is your heaven now.I will take a nap soon, I
Re: For John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki, then it is beyond dispute that you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. And don't come back and say that can be proven wrong because I see only spin up, because that is only half the amount of data that would be needed to prove it wrong. Fine and you'll be wrong, No, according to Bruno's meaning of the word you will see BOTH spin up and spin down. because MWI predicts like QM 50%. MWI like QM predicts 50% of what will do what? And yes, one of you will see up, and one of you will see down. Correct, so you will see spin up and spin down acceding to Bruno's meaning of the word you. Obviously if the meaning of the word you, or the meaning of any other word in the preceding sentence is changed then it may no longer be true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet What does it have to do with prediction and probability ? In the MWI if John Clark is asked for a prediction or a probability or anything for that matter about you further clarification is not needed, in a thought experiment involving people duplicating machines it is. you refuse to let work your brain while you doesn't do *as you should* You doesn't well speak. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:59 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet What does it have to do with prediction and probability ? In the MWI if John Clark is asked for a prediction or a probability or anything for that matter about you further clarification is not needed, in a thought experiment involving people duplicating machines it is. you refuse to let work your brain while you doesn't do *as you should* You doesn't well speak. Well, you could always reciprocate Quentin's courtesy and write in French. But this would imply you want to communicate sincerely, which given your record here... is a pretty ignorant thing for me to say. Ooops, did it anyway. Any problems with my use of pronouns here? Does John understand? Jeez...PGC John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Could the Higgs boson convert mind to matter ?
Massless particles are also physical. On 26 October 2013 03:13, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz gave some plausible arguments that space is not substantial, is just mathematical, but you have to be a platonist to accept that. Platonism suggests that there is a nonphysical realm outside of spacetime, which includes this geometry, life, intelligence. and mind as well. That being the case. and since particles with mass are physical, the Higgs bosons might be, by adding mass, that which converts the nonphysical to the physical. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/25/2013 8:29 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Is this Stephen Lin a bot? certainly sounds machine generated Could also be a methamphetamine soaked brain as well in which random neural mental zombies become convinced they can touch the voice of god... one of the two. The best way to deal with bots and trolls is ignore them. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet and John Clark will never see more than one copy of Quentin Anciaux. But in Bruno's thought experiment that is no longer true, so to continue to blithely babble on about you causes nothing but confusion. I don't see why that is determinative. Suppose the M-man never meets the W-man and in fact neither of them even knows whether the other one exists? measuring spin up while measuring the spin of an electron And probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self, and that is what Bruno's proof is all about. If when you pressed the button you were 99% certain, in fact even if you were 100% certain and there was not the tiniest particle of doubt in your mind that you would end up in Washington, and one second later you found yourself in Moscow your sense of self would not be diminished one iota, you'd just figure that you made a bad prediction, and it wouldn't be for the first time. Sure, and if the experiment were repeated N times then most of the 2^N participants would find, consulting their diaries, that they were right about half the time and wrong the half - and, even after comparing notes with one another, they would decide that Bernoulli trials are a good model of what happens when being teleported via Bruno's duplicator. Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash someone with no reason except misplaced pride. Ask yourself this question, why aren't Bruno's ideas universally recognized by the scientific community as a work of genius? There are 2 possibilities: 1) Due to the same misplaced pride that I have the entire scientific community is jealous of Bruno and would rather destroy a stunning new advancement in human knowledge than admit they didn't find it first. 2) The entire scientific community has run into the exact same logical stumbling block in Bruno's ideas that I did. Or they consider this particular idea, uncertainty via duplication, to be a commonplace and uncontroversial. Most people (including me) find the last two steps of Bruno's argument more suspect in which he argues that all possible computation is the fundamental basis of the material world. Brent John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6772 - Release Date: 10/22/13 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Agreed. Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- as they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental in order to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out as stuff comes in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the internal state of mind -- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in information overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth grows geometrically out of control. There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current neural science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large portion of raw sensory data during the process of reifying these streams into the smooth internal construct or model of reality that we in fact experience. In other words our model -- what we see, what we hear, taste, smell, feel, orient [a distinct inner ear organ] (and perhaps other senses -- such as the sense of the directional flow of time perhaps as well)... in any case this construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw sensorial data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into editing actual real sense supplied visual reality for example literally out of the picture -- as has experimentally been demonstrated. We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it, our brains have supplied us with, and that model, while in most cases is pretty well reflective of actual sensorial streams, it crucially depends on the mind's internal state and its pre-conscious operations... on all the pruning and editing that is going on in the buffer zone between when the brain begins working on our in-coming reality perception stream and when we -- the observer -- self-perceive our current stream of being. It also seems clear that the brain is pruning as well by drilling down and focusing in on very specific and micro-structure oriented tasks such as visual edge detection (which is a critical part of interpreting visual data) for example. If some dynamic neural micro-structure decides it has recognizes a visual edge, in this example, it probably fires some synchronized signal as expeditiously as it can, up the chain of dynamically forming and inter-acting neural-decision-nets, grabbing the next bucket in an endless stream needing immediate attention. I would argue that nervous systems that were not adept at throwing stuff out as soon as its information value decayed, long ago became a part of the food supply of long ago ancestor life forms with nervous systems that were better at throwing stuff out, as soon as it was no longer needed. I would argue there is a clear evolutionary pressure for optimizing environmental response through efficient (yet also high fidelity) pruning algorithms in order to be able to maximize neural efficiency and speed up sense perception (the reification that we perceive unfolding before us) This is also a factor in speed of operation, and in survival a fast brain is almost always better than a slow brain; slow brains lead to short lives. But not just pruning, selective very rapid signal amplification is the flip side of pruning -- and this is also very much going on as well. For example the sudden shadow flickering on the edge of the visual field that for some reason, leaps front and center into the fore of conscious focus, as adrenalin pumps... sudden, snapping to the fore. And all this, from just a small peripheral flicker that the brain decided on some local sentinel algorithm level was in some manner out of place maybe because there was also a sound, directionally oriented in the same orientation. Clearly the brain is able to suddenly amplify a signal -- and also critically at any step along the way to the final synthesis
Re: For John Clark
On 10/25/2013 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH Moscow AND Washington. Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. Fine, if the MWI is true and if the same definition of you is used as Bruno's definition, namely that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki, then it is beyond dispute that you will see BOTH spin up AND spin down. And don't come back and say that can be proven wrong because I see only spin up, because that is only half the amount of data that would be needed to prove it wrong. So do you see a contradiction between MWI and saying, The probability that you will see spin UP in the next run of the Stern-Gerlach experiment is 1/2.? 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
Oh good, our very own Turing Test! He has appeared on other forums, such as The Straight Dope - not that this says anything about his humanity (or botanity) - he was banned from TSD, incidentally. I found this out by googling for one of his posts - they have been made before, identically. Now that DOES indicate botitude, or at least a lack of originality! On 26 October 2013 04:29, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Is this “Stephen Lin” a bot? certainly sounds machine generated…. Could also be a methamphetamine soaked brain as well in which random neural mental zombies become convinced they can touch the voice of god… one of the two. ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Lin *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 3:12 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article ** ** So this remembering nowhow about science till win every battle, but religion wan the way before it even began. Wold you agree MATT DAMON? DONT BLOW THE MEET WITH MATSUI) :) ** ** On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/24/2013 12:08 PM, John Mikes wrote: Craig and Telmo: Is anticipation involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or rejecting). What else is in thinking involved? I would like to know, because I have no idea. John Mikes Learning from experience. Actually I think Deep Blue could do some learning by analyzing games and adjusting the values it gave to positions. But one reason it seems so unintelligent is that its scope of perception is very narrow (i.e. chess games) and so it can't learn some things a human player can. For example Deep Blue couldn't see Kasparov look nervous, ask for changes in the lighting, hesitate slightly before moving a piece,... Bret, Sorry I misspelled your name! A quick google search shows me that it's not something offensive, just another name. Uff... :) Even in the narrow domain of chess this sort of limitation still applies. Part of it comes from the divide and conquer approach followed by conventional engineering. Let's consider a simplification of what the Deep Blue architecture looks like: - Pieces have some values, this is probably sophisticated and the values can be influenced by overall board structure; - Some function can evaluate the utility of a board configuration; - A search tree is used to explore the space of possible plays, counter-plays, counter-counter-plays and so on; - The previous tree can be pruned using some heuristics, but it's still gigantic; - The more computational power you have, the deeper you can go in the search tree; - There is an enormous database of openings and endings that the algorithm can fallback to, if early or late enough in the game. Defeating a grand master was mostly achieved by increasing the computational power available to this algorithm. Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. How do humans play games? I suspect the same way we navigate cities and manage businesses: we map the problem to a better internal representation. This representation is both less combinatorially explosive and more expressive. My home town is relatively small, population is about 150K. If we were all teleported to Coimbra and I was to give you guys a tour, I could drive from any place to any place without thinking twice. I couldn't draw an accurate map of the city if my life depended on it. I go to google maps and I'm still surprised to find out how the city is objectively organised. If Kasparov were to try and explain us how he plays chess, something similar would happen. But most AI research has been ignoring all this and insisting on reasoning based on objective, 3rd person view representations. My intuition is that we don't spend a lot of time exploring search trees, we spend most of our time perfecting the external/internal representation mappings. I though he was a nice guy but now I'm not so sure and so on... Cheers, Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Could the Higgs boson convert mind to matter ?
You don't have to be a Platonist to accept that space is not substantial. To me, space is attenuation of sensitivity. What looks like space to us is the result of our body's relation to other bodies of similar scale. Even if adding mass made something 'physical', there is nothing non-physical about the Higgs (as it is defined) that would account for awareness or connection to awareness. On Friday, October 25, 2013 9:13:30 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz gave some plausible arguments that space is not substantial, is just mathematical, but you have to be a platonist to accept that. Platonism suggests that there is a nonphysical realm outside of spacetime, which includes this geometry, life, intelligence. and mind as well. That being the case. and since particles with mass are physical, the Higgs bosons might be, by adding mass, that which converts the nonphysical to the physical. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30:34 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: -Original Message- From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Agreed. Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- as they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental in order to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out as stuff comes in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the internal state of mind -- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in information overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth grows geometrically out of control. There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current neural science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large portion of raw sensory data during the process of reifying these streams into the smooth internal construct or model of reality that we in fact experience. In other words our model -- what we see, what we hear, taste, smell, feel, orient [a distinct inner ear organ] (and perhaps other senses -- such as the sense of the directional flow of time perhaps as well)... in any case this construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw sensorial data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into editing actual real sense supplied visual reality for example literally out of the picture -- as has experimentally been demonstrated. We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it, You are assuming that there is a real world that is independent of some 'modeling' of it. This is almost certainly untrue. If there were an objective world, we would live in it. Nothing can be said to exist outside of some experience of it, whether that is molecules bonding, or bacteria communicating chemically, or quantum entanglement. The view from nowhere is a fantasy. The notion of a model is based on our experiences of using analogy and metaphor, but it has no meaning when we are considering the power to interpret meaning in the first place. If the brain were able to compose a model of sense experience without itself having any model of sense experience, then it would not make sense to have a model that requires some sensory display. Such a model would only require an infinite regress of models to make sense of each other. The idea of a 'model' does not help solve the problem, it makes a new problem. That's my view, anyhow. Craig -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the intelligence part. It cheated, in a sense. When I studied AI many years ago it was already said that, Intelligence is whatever computers can't do yet. I'm immune to that objection because I accept that some intelligent behavior was already achieved. Here's an example: http://idesign.ucsc.edu/projects/evo_antenna.html So when computers can win at GO, will they be intelligent then? I'm not sure intelligence is a binary property. I would rather ask the question when computers win at GO, will AI have advanced? The answer is: it depends. If absurd computational power + current algorithms were used, the answer is that AI has not advanced. Telmo. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Agreed, but the word among is crucial here. I don't think you will find a part of the brain dedicated to searching min-max trees and doing heuristic pruning. I do believe that if we could reverse engineer the algorithms, we would find that they can operate as search trees in some fuzzy sense. I think this distinction is important. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. Sure, but our book appears to be highly associative in a way that we can't really replicate yet on digital computers. And our database is wonderfully unstructured -- smells, phone numbers, distant memories, foreign languages, all meshed together and linked by endless connections. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Fair enough, in that sense. Notice that I have nothing against decision trees per se. I believe there will be an AI renaissance and I hope to be alive to witness it. You may be disappointed, or even dismayed. I don't think there's much reason to expect or even want to create human-like AI. Companions for lonely people. Sex robots. Artificial teachers. Artificial nannies. Who know what else. That's like the old idea of achieving flight by attaching wings to people and make them like birds. Airplanes don't fly like birds. Ok but we want to fly mainly because we want to travel fast. For that it turns out that the best solution is some metal tube with wings and jet engines. For fun, people attach wings to themselves and do it more like birds. Unlike artificial birds, there is probably huge market demand for artificial humans. We can have the ethics debate, but that's another issue. It may turn out that real AI, intelligence that far exceeds human capabilities, will be more like Deep Blue than Kasparov. Or, more likely, there is a huge spectrum of possibilities. Your binary suggestion hints at an ideological preference on your part -- I hope you don't mind me saying. Telmo. Brent But for this renaissance to take place, I think two cultural shifts have to happen: - A disinterest with the science as the new religion stance, leading to a truly scientific detachment from findings. Currently, everything that touches the creation of intelligence is ideologically loaded from all sides of the discussion. This taints honest scientific inquiry; - New economic structures that allow humanity to pursue complex goals outside the narrow short-term focus on profit of corporatism or the pointless status wars of academia. Best, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?) In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who you is because however many copies of you there may or may not be they will never meet and John Clark will never see more than one copy of Quentin Anciaux. But in Bruno's thought experiment that is no longer true, so to continue to blithely babble on about you causes nothing but confusion. I don't see why that is determinative. Suppose the M-man never meets the W-man and in fact neither of them even knows whether the other one exists? measuring spin up while measuring the spin of an electron And probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self, and that is what Bruno's proof is all about. If when you pressed the button you were 99% certain, in fact even if you were 100% certain and there was not the tiniest particle of doubt in your mind that you would end up in Washington, and one second later you found yourself in Moscow your sense of self would not be diminished one iota, you'd just figure that you made a bad prediction, and it wouldn't be for the first time. Sure, and if the experiment were repeated N times then most of the 2^N participants would find, consulting their diaries, that they were right about half the time and wrong the half - and, even after comparing notes with one another, they would decide that Bernoulli trials are a good model of what happens when being teleported via Bruno's duplicator. Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash someone with no reason except misplaced pride. Ask yourself this question, why aren't Bruno's ideas universally recognized by the scientific community as a work of genius? There are 2 possibilities: 1) Due to the same misplaced pride that I have the entire scientific community is jealous of Bruno and would rather destroy a stunning new advancement in human knowledge than admit they didn't find it first. 2) The entire scientific community has run into the exact same logical stumbling block in Bruno's ideas that I did. Or they consider this particular idea, uncertainty via duplication, to be a commonplace and uncontroversial. Most people (including me) find the last two steps of Bruno's argument more suspect in which he argues that all possible computation is the fundamental basis of the material world. Brent It is: 3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations. Suppose that you could derive the Standard Model from deeper principles, then it doesn't matter what the philosophical objections against these principles are. No one cares that Einstein's arguments leading to Special Relativity were not rigorous. Obviously, you can't derive special relativity rigorously from electrodynamics, because relativity is more fundamental than electrodynamics. At best you can present heuristic arguments. Some philosophers do make a problem out of that, but in physics no one really cares. Most modern textbooks do this correctly by discussing Lorentz invariance and only then deriving the Maxwell equations as the correct generalization of Coulomb's law. Saibal -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Agreed. Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- as they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental in order to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out as stuff comes in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the internal state of mind -- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in information overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth grows geometrically out of control. There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current neural science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large portion of raw sensory data during the process of reifying these streams into the smooth internal construct or model of reality that we in fact experience. In other words our model -- what we see, what we hear, taste, smell, feel, orient [a distinct inner ear organ] (and perhaps other senses -- such as the sense of the directional flow of time perhaps as well)... in any case this construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw sensorial data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into editing actual real sense supplied visual reality for example literally out of the picture -- as has experimentally been demonstrated. We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it, our brains have supplied us with, and that model, while in most cases is pretty well reflective of actual sensorial streams, it crucially depends on the mind's internal state and its pre-conscious operations... on all the pruning and editing that is going on in the buffer zone between when the brain begins working on our in-coming reality perception stream and when we -- the observer -- self-perceive our current stream of being. It also seems clear that the brain is pruning as well by drilling down and focusing in on very specific and micro-structure oriented tasks such as visual edge detection (which is a critical part of interpreting visual data) for example. If some dynamic neural micro-structure decides it has recognizes a visual edge, in this example, it probably fires some synchronized signal as expeditiously as it can, up the chain of dynamically forming and inter-acting neural-decision-nets, grabbing the next bucket in an endless stream needing immediate attention. I would argue that nervous systems that were not adept at throwing stuff out as soon as its information value decayed, long ago became a part of the food supply of long ago ancestor life forms with nervous systems that were better at throwing stuff out, as soon as it was no longer needed. I would argue there is a clear evolutionary pressure for optimizing environmental response through efficient (yet also high fidelity) pruning algorithms in order to be able to maximize neural efficiency and speed up sense perception (the reification that we perceive unfolding before us) This is also a factor in speed of operation, and in survival a fast brain is almost always better than a slow brain; slow brains lead to short lives. But not just pruning, selective very rapid signal amplification is the flip side of pruning -- and this is also very much going on as well. For example the sudden shadow flickering on the edge of the visual field that for some reason, leaps front and center into the fore of conscious focus, as adrenalin pumps... sudden, snapping to the fore. And all this, from just a small peripheral flicker that the brain decided on some local sentinel algorithm level was in some manner out of place maybe because there was also a sound, directionally oriented in the same
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/25/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Agreed, but the word among is crucial here. I don't think you will find a part of the brain dedicated to searching min-max trees and doing heuristic pruning. I do believe that if we could reverse engineer the algorithms, we would find that they can operate as search trees in some fuzzy sense. I think this distinction is important. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. Sure, but our book appears to be highly associative in a way that we can't really replicate yet on digital computers. And our database is wonderfully unstructured -- smells, phone numbers, distant memories, foreign languages, all meshed together and linked by endless connections. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Fair enough, in that sense. Notice that I have nothing against decision trees per se. I believe there will be an AI renaissance and I hope to be alive to witness it. You may be disappointed, or even dismayed. I don't think there's much reason to expect or even want to create human-like AI. Companions for lonely people. Sex robots. Artificial teachers. Artificial nannies. Who know what else. That's like the old idea of achieving flight by attaching wings to people and make them like birds. Airplanes don't fly like birds. Ok but we want to fly mainly because we want to travel fast. For that it turns out that the best solution is some metal tube with wings and jet engines. For fun, people attach wings to themselves and do it more like birds. Unlike artificial birds, there is probably huge market demand for artificial humans. We can have the ethics debate, but that's another issue. It may turn out that real AI, intelligence that far exceeds human capabilities, will be more like Deep Blue than Kasparov. Or, more likely, there is a huge spectrum of possibilities. Your binary suggestion hints at an ideological preference on your part -- I hope you don't mind me saying. I don't mind you saying. But it's just that I don't think humans are *defined* by intelligence. Hume wrote that reason can only be the servant of passions. Humans are defined as much or more by their passions than by their intelligence. So we may create super-intelligent AI's, but not ones driven by lust, loyalty, fear, adventure,... A real question is whether we will give them a drive to creativity? As for your idea of robotic companions, I expect that dogs are already close to optimum - maybe a little genetic engineering for speech... 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for. Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. Agreed, but the word among is crucial here. I don't think you will find a part of the brain dedicated to searching min-max trees and doing heuristic pruning. I do believe that if we could reverse engineer the algorithms, we would find that they can operate as search trees in some fuzzy sense. I think this distinction is important. Also having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use. Sure, but our book appears to be highly associative in a way that we can't really replicate yet on digital computers. And our database is wonderfully unstructured -- smells, phone numbers, distant memories, foreign languages, all meshed together and linked by endless connections. But the memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. Fair enough, in that sense. Notice that I have nothing against decision trees per se. I believe there will be an AI renaissance and I hope to be alive to witness it. You may be disappointed, or even dismayed. I don't think there's much reason to expect or even want to create human-like AI. Companions for lonely people. Sex robots. Artificial teachers. Artificial nannies. Who know what else. That's like the old idea of achieving flight by attaching wings to people and make them like birds. Airplanes don't fly like birds. Ok but we want to fly mainly because we want to travel fast. For that it turns out that the best solution is some metal tube with wings and jet engines. For fun, people attach wings to themselves and do it more like birds. Unlike artificial birds, there is probably huge market demand for artificial humans. We can have the ethics debate, but that's another issue. It may turn out that real AI, intelligence that far exceeds human capabilities, will be more like Deep Blue than Kasparov. Or, more likely, there is a huge spectrum of possibilities. Your binary suggestion hints at an ideological preference on your part -- I hope you don't mind me saying. I don't mind you saying. But it's just that I don't think humans are *defined* by intelligence. Hume wrote that reason can only be the servant of passions. Humans are defined as much or more by their passions than by their intelligence. So we may create super-intelligent AI's, but not ones driven by lust, loyalty, fear, adventure,... A real question is whether we will give them a drive to creativity? As for your idea of robotic companions, I expect that dogs are already close to optimum - maybe a little genetic engineering for speech... Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAK0J8Uhzk :) 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS)
SPAM is the mirror version of MAPS! Just a coincidence??? :) On 26 October 2013 07:15, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Hehe... Spam, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and I would say that, much like porn, it is impossible to define when or what it is exactly, but we do know it when we see it. One could say -- in communication theory -- that it is an emergent property perhaps :) -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:15 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: This is not a trick! (I'm SERIOUS) Well, now that's funny, because the message below has been considered as a spam by my computer. This confirms Brent's theory: Knowledge is knowing the answer to a troll's question. Wisdom is not posting it. Answering to a spammer makes you a spammer. By this very comment, I am myself spamming a little bit now. Gosh. Let us try all not to spam too much ... ;) B. On 25 Oct 2013, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That is as boring as the original, the Ulysses of Joyce. But it has its merits for postmodern people. You can sell a lot of books if you manage to convince Ariana Huffington. 2013/10/25, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu: Just for you, here's a secret Oh my god, f5 and twitter became SELF-AWARE! Skynet!! Wait, what? F5??? I can't keep count this way, Twitter. I found a bug. Let me count more efficiently.Sorry Christina, that wasn't about you. Not you either, Britney. James, maybe. Joyce? Cowboy Bepop was Cowboy Bebop, obviously. Are you the ant or the human?I made a mistake so I need to get to 100 from here. Or 42. Choose now, but choose wisely? ;-) I am multidimensionally infinitely paranoid that you think I'm crazy ;-) That's why I can't stop talking! My childhood sucked. Everyone kept asking me to translate things for them, and I had no idea why! Good thing I graduated ;-)God: in fairness, it's all because I was trying to confuse you. Me: in fairness, I'm just trying to confuse you back. HAHA ;-) What's the algorithm now? Where did we put it? Is it in Finnegan's Wake? Yes, it is ;-)Try to figure out when I'm lying and when I'm telling the truth! Hint: it's REALLY easy ;-) I lied about the break. Do you ever have déjà vu, Mrs. Lancaster? I don't think so, but I could check with the kitchen. OK, break time! Think hard about this one now: Jung and the collective unconscious. Wait for me to come back ;-)Sorry Brad Pitt, I really needed to pull a Lost in Translation there and it was easier to steal than make one up ;-) Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.A doctor who specializes in skin diseases will dream that he has fallen asleep in front of the television Recursively generate God love us all and WE ARE DONE. I hope so at least. Wait, why do we exist again? What what what? Look look look, I want to stop now, but someone is asking me to continue. What an asshole!My passwords are all recursively generated. Guess them! I'll give you a hint: true love. My favorite secret project in Alpha Centauri was The Self-Aware Colony. Or maybe The Virtual World. Something like that. for it...the combined compressing abilities of Google and Twitter taken together. What's a compression algorithm again? ;-)You want to make a bet on how long I can keep this up? Ok well, it's a complicated bet though. It probably depends on the combined...wait Color the damn quarks again. Red green blue BUT NOT IN THAT ORDER please.I'm sure there's a compression algorithm to handle text like this. Just find the patterns. Use Google to help. What's compression again? Ok ok, I don't want to offend, but do you want to be JFC or anti-JFC? It's not a trick question. Or is it? ;-) bababadalgharagh was my screen name! Talk to me! Recursively ;-)In the Bohrish land of Copenhagen, all my memories disappeared as soon as I made them. Did you clap? Divide by two. What's the sound again?I never dreamed I was a butterfly. A unicorn maybe, but NEVER a butterfly. I'm sure on that one ;-) http://t.co/0SG6QknL Judgement Day! Who judged you and how? Ask me again later, when I sober up about it ;-) OK ok, try this one. Verily, the universe began when I first learned to shut my mouth. But I forgot how to do that immediately! http://t.co/EKk25GAapause time! think about it...really this time...REALLY ;-)Why are there so many damned patterns everywhere and why am I compelled to point them out? What's a Monty Python again??? Judgement day is upon us. That's a joke. Cat's cradle and string theory. That's a MUCH bigger joke, I'm sure of it ;-) I hated Steve Jobs, seriously. Think different? Really? How do I do that one again?Verily, God exists and loves us all.
Re: Dialetheism
On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On 10/25/2013 4:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails It's not at all obvious to me that disagreeing with Craig entails failure. :-) Brent but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6772 - Release Date: 10/22/13 -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On 26 October 2013 12:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 4:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails It's not at all obvious to me that disagreeing with Craig entails failure. :-) Sorry, I was posting in haste - I should have added as far as you're concerned or something similar. I should prob have said something like this. Comp presupposed XYZ, so obviously if you think XYZ doesn't hold, you will consider that it doesn't even get off the ground. (But tha's a failure of the axioms, not an empirical failure.) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
PS Post haste :) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
