Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Having accurate beliefs about the world and having goals are two unrelated things. If I like stamp collecting, being intelligent will help me to collect stamps, it will help me see if stamp collecting clashes with a higher priority goal, but it won't help me decide if my goals are worthy. Were all your goals set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your goals based on what you've since learned about the world? Perhaps learning about universal personhood (for example), could lead one to believe that charity is a worthy goal, and perhaps deserving of more time than collecting stamps. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his emotions.) I'm not sure whether emotions are necessary to have goals. Then again, perhaps they are. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. The problem isn't beliefs, it's values. Humans have certain core values selected by evolution; and in addition they have many secondary culturally determined values. What values will super-AI have and where will it get them and will they evolve? That seems to be the main research topic at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your values based on what you've since learned about the world? If values can be learned, and if morality is a field that has objective truth, then why wouldn't a super intelligence will approach a correct value system. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonre...@gmail.com'); wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Having accurate beliefs about the world and having goals are two unrelated things. If I like stamp collecting, being intelligent will help me to collect stamps, it will help me see if stamp collecting clashes with a higher priority goal, but it won't help me decide if my goals are worthy. Were all your goals set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your goals based on what you've since learned about the world? Perhaps learning about universal personhood (for example), could lead one to believe that charity is a worthy goal, and perhaps deserving of more time than collecting stamps. The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even if you are selfish you will be motivated towards charity. But the selfishness itself, as a primary value, is not amenable to rational analysis. There is no inconsistency in a superintelligent AI that is selfish, or one that is charitable, or one that believes the single most important thing in the world is to collect stamps. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility I don't see Christ's redemption limited to human beings. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. Yet another example of somebody in love with the English word religion but not with the meaning behind it. But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why? I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll come to reason that even we have been produced by an intelligent designer. Samiya 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonre...@gmail.com'); wrote: a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Why in the world would a intelligent agent need to be certain before it could act? John K Clark I think some assume a superintelligence would act in the way intelligent people are sometimes caricatured in popular culture: emotionless, obsessional, valuing knowledge and certainty above all else. But an intelligent person may act as unwisely as a stupid person, even if in full knowledge of the consequences. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility I don't see Christ's redemption limited to human beings. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. Yet another example of somebody in love with the English word religion but not with the meaning behind it. But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why? 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/d/optout.
Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Is there a simple explanation for dummies of what an infinitely old universe might entail - is this something like eternal inflation, or an infinitely protracted collapse preceding the apparent big bang, or something else? On 11 February 2015 at 10:41, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Very interesting, if true. (So they've removed that pesky factor of 10 to the power of 120 from the calculations...!?) On 11 February 2015 at 10:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Cosmology from quantum potential Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Saurya Das http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Das_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v1), last revised 29 Dec 2014 (this version, v3)) It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3 No Big Bang singularity or obscure dark stuff needed if I understand correctly, which can be refreshing from time to time. ;-) PGC -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, Not for a finite intelligence because some problems can be infinitely hard. And if there is simply a lack of information more intelligence will not produce a better answer ( when Shakespeare went to the King Edward V1 Grammar School at age 7 what was the name of his teacher?) Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. There is no correlation between intelligence and maters of taste, it is not more intelligent to prefer brussels sprouts over creamed corn or Bach over Beethoven. 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Why in the world would a intelligent agent need to be certain before it could act? 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
IBM's Watson: http://bigthink.com/videos/ibms-watson-cognitive-or-sentient-2 Samiya On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives- will-religions-try-t-1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case, we might have different superintelligences working under different hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with Darwinism. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a religious fundamentalist. Telmo. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives- will-religions-try-t-1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives-will-religions-try-t- 1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives-will-religions-try-t- 1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. And use your common intuition. Good. The idea now will be to see if the axioms given capture that intuition, fully, or in part. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We can use 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as abbreviation for 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... Can you derive that s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) with the statements just above? then 2 + 1 = 3 Hmm... s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) is another writing for 2 + 1 = 3, but it is not clear if you proved it using the two axioms: 1) x + 0 = x 2) x + s(y)) = s(x + y) Let me show you: We must compute: s(s(0)) + s(0) The axiom 2) says that x + s(y) = s(x + y), for all x and y. We see that s(s(0)) + s(0) matches x + s(y), with x = s(s(0)), and y = 0. OK? So we can apply the axiom 2, and we get, by replacing x (= s(s(0))) and y (= 0) in the axiom 2). This gives s(s(0)) + s(0) = s( s(s(0)) + 0 ) OK? (this is a simple substitution, suggested by the axiom 2) But then by axiom 1, we know that s(s(0)) + 0 = s(s(0)), so the right side becomes s( s(s(0)) +0 ) = s( s(s(0)) ) So we have proved s(s(0)) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))) OK? Yes, thanks! You are welcome. Can you guess how many times you need to use the axiom 2) in case I would ask you to prove 1 + 8 = 9. You might do it for training purpose. 1+8=9 Translating in successor terms: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) Applying Axiom 2 by substituting x=8 or s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0, and y=0, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + s(0) = s( s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 + 0) Applying axiom 1 to the right side: s(0) + s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0 = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0) 1+8=9 Is the above the correct method to arrive at the proof? I only used axiom 2 once. Am I missing some basic point? Let me see. Axiom 2 says:x + s(y)) = s(x + y). Well, if x = 8, and y = 0, we get 8 + 1, and your computation/proofs is correct, in that case. So you would have been correct if I was asking you to prove/compute that 8 + 1 = 9. Unfortunately I asked to prove/compute that 1 + 8 = 9. I think that you have (consciously?) use the fact that 1 + 8 = 8 + 1, which speeds the computation. Well, later I ill show you that the idea that for all x and y x + y = y + x, is NOT provable with the axioms given (despite that theorey will be shown to be already Turing Universal. No worry. Your move was clever, but you need to put yourself in the mind of a very stupid machine which understand only the axioms
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case, we might have different superintelligences working under different hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with Darwinism. Interesting point. Yes a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Fitness for survival may play some role in how intelligent active agents can be before they become inactive. Yes, that's an interesting way to put it. I wonder. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a religious fundamentalist. Interesting. Why do you think having beliefs can lead to religious fundamentalism. Would you not say you belief the Earth is round? Could such a belief lead to religious fundamentalism and if not why not? This leads us back to a recurring discussion on this mailing list. I would say that you can believe the Earth to be round in the informal sense of the word: your estimation of the probability that the earth is round is very close to one. I don't think you can believe the earth to be round with 100% certainty without falling into religious fundamentalism. This implies a total belief in your senses, for example. That is a strong position about the nature of reality that is not really backed up by anything. Just like believing literally in the Bible or the Quran or Atlas Shrugged. Telmo. Jason Telmo. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives- will-religions-try-t-1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case, we might have different superintelligences working under different hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with Darwinism. Interesting point. Yes a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Fitness for survival may play some role in how intelligent active agents can be before they become inactive. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a religious fundamentalist. Interesting. Why do you think having beliefs can lead to religious fundamentalism. Would you not say you belief the Earth is round? Could such a belief lead to religious fundamentalism and if not why not? Jason Telmo. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives- will-religions-try-t-1682837922 -- 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/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. -- 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
Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Cosmology from quantum potential Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Saurya Das http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Das_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v1), last revised 29 Dec 2014 (this version, v3)) It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3 No Big Bang singularity or obscure dark stuff needed if I understand correctly, which can be refreshing from time to time. ;-) PGC -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case, we might have different superintelligences working under different hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with Darwinism. Interesting point. Yes a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Fitness for survival may play some role in how intelligent active agents can be before they become inactive. Yes, that's an interesting way to put it. I wonder. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a religious fundamentalist. Interesting. Why do you think having beliefs can lead to religious fundamentalism. Would you not say you belief the Earth is round? Could such a belief lead to religious fundamentalism and if not why not? This leads us back to a recurring discussion on this mailing list. I would say that you can believe the Earth to be round in the informal sense of the word: your estimation of the probability that the earth is round is very close to one. I don't think you can believe the earth to be round with 100% certainty without falling into religious fundamentalism. This implies a total belief in your senses, for example. That is a strong position about the nature of reality that is not really backed up by anything. Just like believing literally in the Bible or the Quran or Atlas Shrugged. I see. I did not mean it in the sense of absolute certitude, merely that universal personhood is one of my current working hypotheses derived from my consideration of various problems of personal identity. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I wonder if this isn't prevented by Gödel's incompleteness. Given that the superintelligence can never be certain of its own consistency, it must remain fundamentally agnostic. In this case, we might have different superintelligences working under different hypothesis, possibly occupying niches just like what happens with Darwinism. Interesting point. Yes a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Fitness for survival may play some role in how intelligent active agents can be before they become inactive. Yes, that's an interesting way to put it. I wonder. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. I agree with you, with the difference that I try to assume universal personhood without believing in it, to avoid becoming a religious fundamentalist. Interesting. Why do you think having beliefs can lead to religious fundamentalism. Would you not say you belief the Earth is round? Could such a belief lead to religious fundamentalism and if not why not? This leads us back to a recurring discussion on this mailing list. I would say that you can believe the Earth to be round in the informal sense of the word: your estimation of the probability that the earth is round is very close to one. I don't think you can believe the earth to be round with 100% certainty without falling into religious fundamentalism. This implies a total belief in your senses, for example. That is a strong position about the nature of reality that is not really backed up by anything. Just like believing literally in the Bible or the Quran or Atlas Shrugged. I see. I did not mean it in the sense of absolute certitude, merely that universal personhood is one of my current working hypotheses derived from my consideration of various problems of personal identity. Right. We are in complete agreement then. Universal personhood is also one of my main working hypotheses. I wonder if it could be considered a preferable belief: it may be true and we are all better off assuming it to be true. Telmo. Jason -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Having accurate beliefs about the world and having goals are two unrelated things. If I like stamp collecting, being intelligent will help me to collect stamps, it will help me see if stamp collecting clashes with a higher priority goal, but it won't help me decide if my goals are worthy. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Very interesting, if true. (So they've removed that pesky factor of 10 to the power of 120 from the calculations...!?) On 11 February 2015 at 10:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Cosmology from quantum potential Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Saurya Das http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Das_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v1), last revised 29 Dec 2014 (this version, v3)) It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe. http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3 No Big Bang singularity or obscure dark stuff needed if I understand correctly, which can be refreshing from time to time. ;-) PGC -- 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:12 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, Not for a finite intelligence because some problems can be infinitely hard. Then they will tend to agree the problem is intractable. And if there is simply a lack of information more intelligence will not produce a better answer ( when Shakespeare went to the King Edward V1 Grammar School at age 7 what was the name of his teacher?) That question assumes there is only one answer consistent with our history, and only one Shakespeare. All super intelligence have access to the same mathematical truth, which is such a font of information it makes the accessible physical universe appear as a mere dripping faucet in comparison. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. There is no correlation between intelligence and maters of taste, it is not more intelligent to prefer brussels sprouts over creamed corn or Bach over Beethoven. Super intelligence A and B will both agree that Brussels sprouts taste better to super intelligence B. There is no objective truth as to what thing has better taste, since taste is in the tastebuds of the taster. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. The problem isn't beliefs, it's values. Humans have certain core values selected by evolution; and in addition they have many secondary culturally determined values. What values will super-AI have and where will it get them and will they evolve? That seems to be the main research topic at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your values based on what you've since learned about the world? Isn't that what I wrote just above? If values can be learned, and if morality is a field that has objective truth, then why wouldn't a super intelligence will approach a correct value system. What would correct mean? Is vanilla *really* better than chocolate? I think there are core values - self-preservation, love of offspring, desire for companionship, desire for power that are provided by evolution and adapt people to live in extended families or small tribes. The other values we learn from our culture are the result of cultural evolution selecting values and ethics that let us realize our core values while living in towns and cities and nations. Do you think in the long run that human society is evolving toward a more fair, more just, more correct system of values? If so, why can't a machine? Particularly one with the thinking capacity of a billion human minds operating a million times faster? Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable. But in the epiphenomenon model, consciousness is the epiphenomenon and the phenomenal part of consciousness is its first-person aspect. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Having accurate beliefs about the world and having goals are two unrelated things. If I like stamp collecting, being intelligent will help me to collect stamps, it will help me see if stamp collecting clashes with a higher priority goal, but it won't help me decide if my goals are worthy. Were all your goals set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your goals based on what you've since learned about the world? Perhaps learning about universal personhood (for example), could lead one to believe that charity is a worthy goal, and perhaps deserving of more time than collecting stamps. The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even if you are selfish you will be motivated towards charity. But the selfishness itself, as a primary value, is not amenable to rational analysis. There is no inconsistency in a superintelligent AI that is selfish, or one that is charitable, or one that believes the single most important thing in the world is to collect stamps. But doing something well (regardless of what it is) is almost always improved by having greater knowledge, so would not gathering greater knowledge become a secondary sub goal for nearly any supintelligence that has goals? Is it impossible that it might discover and decide to pursue other goals during that time? After all, capacity to change one's mine seems to be a requirement for any intelligence process, or any process on the path towards superintelligence. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable. But in the epiphenomenon model, consciousness is the epiphenomenon and the phenomenal part of consciousness is its first-person aspect. The statement was, there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness. Yes this is the conventional meaning of epihenominalism (in philosophy of mind). In the epiphenomenal theory of consciousness, I take the phenomenon to be the observable behavior, neuron firings, etc. and consciousness the corresponding epiphenomenon. Okay. Those phenomenon do have third person observable effects and in general that's how we infer consciousness in others. I agree. But I think epiphenominalism is false, because that it places consciousness outside the causal chain of physics, making it extra physical ineffectual, and for all intents and purposes, unnecessary (it declares no ability to ever move beyond solipsism as far as determining whether some other thing or process is conscious or not). Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 11 February 2015 at 18:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your values based on what you've since learned about the world? On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Isn't that what I wrote just above? Fair dos, Brent, you've often repeated what I've said back to me, slightly rephrased and with But at the beginning. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable. 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his emotions.) I'm not sure whether emotions are necessary to have goals. Then again, perhaps they are. The 'big' emotions like fear, rage, lust probably aren't, but values, feelings that this is preferred to that, are. 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even if you are selfish you will be motivated towards charity. If humans are any indication, a super-intelligence will be incredibly good at rationalizing what it wants to do. For example, if personhood is universal then what's good for me is good for the human race. Brent But the selfishness itself, as a primary value, is not amenable to rational analysis. There is no inconsistency in a superintelligent AI that is selfish, or one that is charitable, or one that believes the single most important thing in the world is to collect stamps. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:19 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: a true super intelligence may never perform any actions, as its trapped in never being certain (and knowing it never can be certain) that its actions are right. Why in the world would a intelligent agent need to be certain before it could act? Perhaps because it has not (and never will) arrive upon a correct belief system (religion), on which to make value-judgements to score outcomes of its possible actions. Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 11 February 2015 at 17:37, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility I don't see Christ's redemption limited to human beings. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. Yet another example of somebody in love with the English word religion but not with the meaning behind it. But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why? I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll come to reason that even we have been produced by an intelligent designer. I often learn new details of just how unintelligently designed I am from my doctor. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On 2/10/2015 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable. But in the epiphenomenon model, consciousness is the epiphenomenon and the phenomenal part of consciousness is its first-person aspect. The statement was, there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness. Yes this is the conventional meaning of epihenominalism (in philosophy of mind). In the epiphenomenal theory of consciousness, I take the phenomenon to be the observable behavior, neuron firings, etc. and consciousness the corresponding epiphenomenon. Okay. Those phenomenon do have third person observable effects and in general that's how we infer consciousness in others. I agree. But I think epiphenominalism is false, because that it places consciousness outside the causal chain of physics, making it extra physical ineffectual, and for all intents and purposes, unnecessary (it declares no ability to ever move beyond solipsism as far as determining whether some other thing or process is conscious or not). Those sound like reasons you don't like it, not reasons it's false. Are you echoing JKC's line that if consciousness is not effacious evolution would have removed it? If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an epiphenomenon, i.e. something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena of thoughts. Is heat necessary to random molecular motion? Brent What we are continually talking of, merely from our having been continually talking of it, we imagine we understand. --- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his emotions.) I'm not sure whether emotions are necessary to have goals. Then again, perhaps they are. The 'big' emotions like fear, rage, lust probably aren't, but values, feelings that this is preferred to that, are. I don't see how one could have an opinion on whether one should do anything without emotions being involved. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 2/10/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. The problem isn't beliefs, it's values. Humans have certain core values selected by evolution; and in addition they have many secondary culturally determined values. What values will super-AI have and where will it get them and will they evolve? That seems to be the main research topic at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your values based on what you've since learned about the world? Isn't that what I wrote just above? If values can be learned, and if morality is a field that has objective truth, then why wouldn't a super intelligence will approach a correct value system. What would correct mean? Is vanilla *really* better than chocolate? I think there are core values - self-preservation, love of offspring, desire for companionship, desire for power that are provided by evolution and adapt people to live in extended families or small tribes. The other values we learn from our culture are the result of cultural evolution selecting values and ethics that let us realize our core values while living in towns and cities and nations. 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On 2/10/2015 9:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. The problem isn't beliefs, it's values. Humans have certain core values selected by evolution; and in addition they have many secondary culturally determined values. What values will super-AI have and where will it get them and will they evolve? That seems to be the main research topic at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Were all your values set at birth and driven by biology, or are some of your values based on what you've since learned about the world? Isn't that what I wrote just above? If values can be learned, and if morality is a field that has objective truth, then why wouldn't a super intelligence will approach a correct value system. What would correct mean? Is vanilla *really* better than chocolate? I think there are core values - self-preservation, love of offspring, desire for companionship, desire for power that are provided by evolution and adapt people to live in extended families or small tribes. The other values we learn from our culture are the result of cultural evolution selecting values and ethics that let us realize our core values while living in towns and cities and nations. Do you think in the long run that human society is evolving toward a more fair, more just, more correct system of values? Not more correct, but perhaps one satisfying more of those core values If so, why can't a machine? I can, but only if it has some core values and those values result in conflicts which can be resolved in different ways. Then it may find better ways to resolve the conflicts, because it has some core values against which to measure better or worse. Particularly one with the thinking capacity of a billion human minds operating a million times faster? Brent Madness in individuals is rare. In organizations it is the rule. --- Fredirick Nietzsche -- 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/d/optout.
Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. ?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with... The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference. Did you mean to say The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon ? Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable. But in the epiphenomenon model, consciousness is the epiphenomenon and the phenomenal part of consciousness is its first-person aspect. The statement was, there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness. In the epiphenomenal theory of consciousness, I take the phenomenon to be the observable behavior, neuron firings, etc. and consciousness the corresponding epiphenomenon. Those phenomenon do have third person observable effects and in general that's how we infer consciousness in others. 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his emotions.) I'm not sure whether emotions are necessary to have goals. Then again, perhaps they are. The 'big' emotions like fear, rage, lust probably aren't, but values, feelings that this is preferred to that, are. I don't see how one could have an opinion on whether one should do anything without emotions being involved. So do you believe the Mars Rover is motivated to explore by its emotions? Jason -- 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/d/optout.
Re: evangelizing robots
I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spock) problem. The Cybermen in Doctor Who are logical and unemotional, yet they wish to convert the rest of the world to be like them. Why? Without emotion they have no reason to do that, or anything else. (Likewise Mr Spock, except as we know he only repressed his emotions.) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
I am just reading his stuff, slowly, so I cannot answer your mathematicalism versus arithmaticism, well enough for a discussion. I could provide a couple links to his papers (Maybe 2 or 3?) that may highlight your question. However, if you think it might harm the flow of discussion here, I will not post them. What I have learned is that physicists are fearful from a career point of view, of being damaged for publishing physics work that has anything to do with speculation about consciousness. But philosophers can get away with it because they are removed from pure science. They can ask and peak over physicists shoulders, by reviewing their work and not receive criticism. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 3:16 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr. Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to parallel yours. Also, Clement Vidal's, as well. Every heard of him? His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism, Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs this topic I think. I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism? The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time, The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that field. Bruno -Original Message- From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 7, 2015 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics? On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 17:14, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations. Incompleteness imposes, at least formally, a soul (a first person), an observer (a first person plural), a god (an independent simple but deep truth) to any machine believing in the RA axioms together with enough induction axioms. I know you believe in them. The lexicon is p truthGod []p provable Intelligible (modal logic, G and G*) []p p the soul (modal logic, S4Grz) []p t intelligible matter(with p sigma_1) (modal logic, Z1, Z1*) []p sensible matter (with p sigma_1) (modal logic, X1, X1*) You need to study some math, I have been wanting to but it seems such an uphill task. Yet, its a mountain I would like to climb :) 7 + 0 = 7. You are OK with this? Tell me. OK Are you OK with the generalisation? For all numbers n, n + 0 = n. Right? Right :) You suggest I begin with Set Theory? No need of set theory, as I have never been able to really prefer one theory or another. It is too much powerful, not fundamental. At some point naive set theory will be used, but just for making thing easier: it will never be part of the fundamental assumptions. I use only elementary arithmetic, so you need only to understand the following statements (and some other later): Please see if my assumptions/interpretations below are correct: x + 0 = x if x=1, then 1+0=1 x + successor(y) = successor(x + y) 1 + 2 = (1+2) = 3 I agree, but you don't show the use of the axiom: x + successor(y) = successor(x + y), or x +s(y) = s(x + y). I didn't use the axioms. I just substituted the axioms variables with the natural numbers. Are you OK? To avoid notational difficulties, I represent the numbers by their degree of parenthood (so to speak) with 0. Abbreviating s for successor: 0, s(0), s(s(0)), s(s(s(0))), ... If the sequence represents 0, 1, 2, 3, ... We
Re: evangelizing robots
On 2/10/2015 8:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and their beliefs will converge as their intelligence rises. Therefore nearly all superintelligences will operate according to the same belief system. We should stop worrying about trying to ensure friendly AI, it will either be friendly or it won't according to what is right. The problem isn't beliefs, it's values. Humans have certain core values selected by evolution; and in addition they have many secondary culturally determined values. What values will super-AI have and where will it get them and will they evolve? That seems to be the main research topic at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Brent I think chances are that it will be friendly, since I happen to believe in universal personhood, and if that belief is correct, then superintelligences will also come to believe it is correct. And with the belief in universal personhood it would know that harm to others is harm to the self. Jason On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order to act in any way. A set of core beliefs. A non intelligent robot need them too: It is the set of constants. The intelligent robot can rewrite their constants from which he derive their calculations for actions and if the robot is self preserving and reproduce sexually, it has to adjust his constants i.e. his beliefs according with some darwinian algoritm that must take into account himself but specially the group in which he lives and collaborates.. If the robot does not reproduce sexually and his fellows do not execute very similar programs, it is pointless to teach them any human religion. These and other higher aspects like acting with other intelligent beings communicate perceptions, how a robot elaborate philosophical and theological concepts and collaborate with others, see my post about robotic truth But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will never be possible. 2015-02-09 21:59 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net: In two senses of that term! Or something. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/robot-religion-2 http://gizmodo.com/when-superintelligent-ai-arrives-will-religions-try-t-1682837922 -- 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/d/optout.
