Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to Popperian epistemology can evolve. “To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.” “The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its turn not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea of a self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time which underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of today, and of tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 object, is itself partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; and the full consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.” Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/three-worlds.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
2012/10/9 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru: On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to Popperian epistemology can evolve. “To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.” ..and the perception of world1 is not a objective image of the phisical realiy, but a result of particular adaptive needs, interests and purposes. This perception of world1 is not part of world 1, but an evolutionary product, that is part of world 2. This is very important. That means that any perception has a purpose from the beginning, and making an objective idea of phisical reality is not neither can be a valid purpose, because it is ultimateley, purposeless and, additionally it has infinite objective versions of it (do we want to perceive radiation? neutrinos? atoms? only macroscopical thigs?. Therefore, the general intelligence, that is part of World 3, has to work with the impulses, perceptions and purposes evolved in world 2 . Therefore we the humans are limited by that (and in any other artificial case, as i would show). But this does not means that the human mind, have the take this limit as a absolute limit for their reasoning. He ask itself about the nature of these limitations and reach different reactions to this: one answer is to adopt a particular belief that match with these limitations, negate them (nihilism). or try to transcend them (gnosticism : my limitations are false impositions and I have to search for my true self ) or try to know them (realism) That is the difference between a tool, like an ordinary Mars Rover that send data to the eart from a person or for that matter, an AGI devide sent to mars with the memories of life in earth erased and with an impulse to inform the earth by radiowaves: While the ordinary rover will be incapable to improve its own program in a qualitative way, the man or the AGI will first think about how to improve his task (because it would be a pleasure for him and his main purpose). To do so he will have to ask itself about the motives of the people that sent him. To do so he will ask himself about the nature of his work to try to know the intentions of the senders, So he will study the nature of the phisical medium to better know the purposes of the senders (while actively working in the task, because it is a pleasure form him) . But, because he will also have impulses for self preservation and curiosity in order to inprove self preservation. To predict the future he will go up in the chain of causations, he will enter into philosophical questions at some level and adopt a certain wordview among the three above mentioned ones, beyond the strict limitations of his task. Otherwise he would not be AGI or human. General inteligence by definition can not be limited if there is enough time and resources. So the true test of AGI would be a philosophical questioning about existence, purpose, perception. That includes moral questions that can be asked due to the freedom of alternatives between different purposes that the AGI has: For example, whether if the rover would weight less or more the self preservation versus task realization ( Do I go to this dangerous crater that has this interesting ice looking rocks or I spend the time pointing my panels to the sun? ) Note that a response to the questions: 1 What is the ultimate meaning of your activity -It`s my pleasure to search interesting things and to send the info to the earth. 2 What is is interesting for you?. -Interesting is what i find interesting by my own program, which I cannot neither I want to know. 3- Don´t you realize that if you adopt this attitude then you can not improve your task that way? - Dont waste my time. Bye Would reveal an worldview (the first) that is a hint of general intelligence, despite the fact that apparently he refuses to answer philosophical questions. “The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its turn not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea of a self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time which underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of today, and of tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 object, is itself partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; and the full consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.” Evgenii --
Re: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment
Hi Richard, My point was that monads do not add any faculty to an object that it does not already have. Monadization doesn't actually do anything, it allows what is possible in principle, such as mutual actions between the mind and body, to actually happen. But if a computer can think, as you seem to believe, it can think without considering it as a monad. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 09:25:50 Subject: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's inside do what it can do. Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of experience. Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or code. Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly available. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? ? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? How do you know? I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know because they have none, they only have cause and effect. How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to places to eat and sleep? And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future supercomputers and here you are ? anthropomorphizing simple chemicals. Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware? Because then we wouldn't be aware of having this conversation. And we are aware of having this conversation because everything is aware, except of course for computers. ? Robots are something? No, they aren't something. That is just a little too silly to argue. ? Everything is awareness Are you certain, I thought everything is klogknee, or maybe its everything is 42. evolution requires that something be alive to begin with. Evolution requires something that
The fundamental problem
Hi Alberto G. Corona IMHO the bottom line revolves around the problem of solipsism, which is that we cannot prove that other people or objects have minds, we can only say at most that they appear to have minds. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:45:00 Subject: Re:_The_real_reasons_we_don?_have_AGI_yet Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. How evolution makes a portion of matter ascertain what is truth in virtue of what and for what purpose. The idea of intelligence need a knowledge of what is truth but also a motive for acting and therefore using this intelligence. if there is no purpose there is no acting, if no act, no selection of intelligent behaviours if no evolution, no intelligence. Not only intelligence is made for acting accoding with arbitrary purpose: It has evolved from the selection of resulting behaviours for precise purposes. an ordinary purpose is non separable from other purposes that are coordinated for a particular superior purpose, but the chain of reasoning and actng means tthat a designed intelligent robot also need an ultimate purpose. otherwise it would be a sequencer and achiever of disconnected goals at a certain level where the goals would never have coordination, that is it would be not intelligent. This is somewhat different ffom humans, because much of our goals are hardcoded and non accessible to introspection, although we can use evolutionary reasoning for obtaining falsable hypothesis about apparently irrational behaviour, like love, anger aestetics, pleasure and so on. However men are from time to time asking themselves for the deep meaning of what he does. specially when a whole chain of goals have failed, so he is a in a bottleneck. Because this is the right thing to do for intelligent beings. A true intelligent being therefore has existential, moral and belief problems. If an artificial intelligent being has these problems, the designed as solved the problem of AGI to the most deeper level. An AGI designed has no such core engine of impulses and perceptions that drive, in the first place, intelligence to action: curiosity, fame and respect, power, social navigation instimcts. It has to start from scratch. Concerning perceptions, a man has hardwired perceptions that create meaning: There is part of brain circuitry at various levels that make it feel that a person in front of him is another person. But really it is its evolved circuitry what makes the impression that that is a person and that this is true, instead of a bunch of moving atoms. Popperian Evoluitionary epistemology build from this. All of this link computer science with philosophy at the deeper level. Another comment concerning design: The evolutionary designs are different from rational designs. The modularity in rartional design arises from the fact that reason can not reason with many variables at the same time. Reason uses divide an conquer. Object oriented design, modual architecture and so on are a consequence of that limitation. These design are understandable by other humans, but they are not the most effcient. In contrast, modularity in evolution is functional. That means that if a brain structure is near other in the brain forming a greater structuture it is for reasons of efficiency, not for reasons of modularity. the interfaces between modules are not discrete, but pervasive. This makes essentially a reverse engineering of the brain inpossible. 2012/10/8 John Clark How David Deutsch can watch a computer beat the 2 best human Jeopardy! players on planet Earth and then say that AI has made ?o progress whatever during the entire six decades of its existence? is a complete mystery to me. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group,
I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
Hi Alberto G. Corona and Bruno, Perhaps I can express the problem of solipsism as this. To have a mind means that one can experience. Experiences are subjective and thus cannot be actually shared, the best one can do is share a description of the experience. If one cannot actually share another's experience, one cannot know if they actually had an experience-- that is, that they actually have a mind. Comp seems to avoid this insurmountable problem by avoiding the issue of whether the computer actually had an experience, only that it appeared to have an experience. So comp's requirement is as if rather than is. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 15:12:22 Subject: Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring ofbottom-up sensory info Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal : On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don? assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can know relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic. which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?. Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution gives it too. The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not realize it) Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation). By the way, Bruno, you try
Experiences are not provable because they are private, personal.
Hi Bruno Marchal and Stathis, 1. Only entities in spacetime physically exist, and thus can be measured and proven. 2. Experiences exist only in the mind, not in spacetime, because they are not extended in nature. They are subjective. Beyond spacetime. Superphysical. Unproveable to others, but certain to oneself. 3. Numbers, being other than oneself, might possibly have experiences, but they cannot share them with us. They can only share descriptions of experiences, not the experiences themselves (or even if those experiences exist). Roger rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 10:19:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Hi Roger, On 08 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou I would put it that mind is superphysical. Beyond spacetime. Supernatural as a word carries too much baggage. With comp, the natural numbers are supernatural enough. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no possibility of anything other than more physics. There is no hint of any kind that these laws should lead to any such thing as an 'experience' or awareness of any kind. You beg the question 100% and are 100% incapable of seeing that you are doing it. Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural, isn't it? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Bruno Marchal Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 10:19:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Hi Roger, On 08 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou I would put it that mind is superphysical. Beyond spacetime. Supernatural as a word carries too much baggage. With comp, the natural numbers are supernatural enough. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no possibility of anything other than more physics. There is no hint of any kind that these laws should lead to any such thing as an 'experience' or awareness of any kind. You beg the question 100% and are 100% incapable of seeing that you are doing it. Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural, isn't it? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conjoined Twins
Hi Craig Weinberg Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:02:27 Subject: Conjoined Twins Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby and Brittany: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at nearly the same time. I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing. Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TGERtHlMkLIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conjoined Twins
Hi Craig Weinberg The subjective aspect (Firstness), some of which apparently each twin has, is not shareable, only descriptions of it (Thirdness) are shareable. Firstness. What is shareable is Thirdness. What cannot be shared is Firstness. Thirdness is the description of Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:02:27 Subject: Conjoined Twins Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby and Brittany: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at nearly the same time. I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing. Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TGERtHlMkLIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness had to arise before language. Apes are conscious. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:23:18 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. You are almost right but have it upside down. When someone gets knocked unconscious, can they continue to behave intelligently? Can a baby wake up from a nap and become conscious before they learn language? What would lead us to presume that consciousness itself could supervene on intelligence except if we were holding on to a functionalist metaphysics? Clearly human intelligence in each individual supervenes on their consciousness and clearly supercomputers can't feel any pain or show any signs of fatigue that would suggest a state of physical awareness despite their appearances of 'intelligence'. If you flip it over though, you are right. Everything is conscious to some extent, but not everything is intelligent in a cognitive sense. The assumption of strong AI is that we can take the low hanging fruit of primitive consciousness and attach it to the tree tops of anthropological quality intelligence and it will grow a new tree into outer space. Craig Bretn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ij3bVaKTduQJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:25:15 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Just look at the Conjoined Twins video I posted. Those two people are genetically identical, occupy the same body, experience stimulation that is very similar, yet they *routinely* disagree. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/D6i59u2_rdEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg They can only disagree about experiences that are spoken. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg There are three things: 1) The experiences of each twin, which may be the same or differ (we'll never know). 2) What they describe or interpret of their experiences in words. 3) They may the same experience but describe it differently. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 16:25:20 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Just look at the Conjoined Twins video I posted. Those two people are genetically identical, occupy the same body, experience stimulation that is very similar, yet they *routinely* disagree. Similar isn't the same. But the behavior varies in similarity while their stimulation does not. Clearly they are each controlling their own behavior separately, even though the degree to which their stimulation from the outside world does not vary separately. If the internal conditions were sufficient to allow their control strategies to diverge, then they should not re-synchronize again and again constantly. Each difference should build on each other, like two slightly different fractal kernels wouldn't weave in and out of perfect synch all the time, they would follow completely anomalous paths. The fractals might look like the are exploring different patterns (if even that) but it seems like they would not keep going back to isomorphic patterns at the same time. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/thWJvtDb6ugJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Consciousness is a faraway land
Hi John Clark Pascal said that the heart knows things of which the mind knows not. Consciousness is a faraway land of which we know nothing, except that we can experience things. We can describe our experiences but cannot share them directly or prove them. The same is true of religion. The experience of religion is called faith, what we can share is called beliefs. So we can truly know things about religion that we can only partly explain or prove. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 11:42:01 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012? Craig Weinberg wrote: We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. Absolutely not. We know no such thing. We do unless we abandon reason and pretend that the non answers that religion provides actually explain something, or that your Fart Philosophy explains something when it says that consciousness exists because consciousness exists. Computers which have been programmed thus far don't have conscious experiences. Would you agree that is a fact? No, I most certainly do NOT agree that it is a fact that computers are not conscious, nor is it a fact that Craig Weinberg has conscious experiences; it is only a fact that sometimes both behave intelligently. ? I understand that the capacity to have a conscious experience is inversely proportionate to the capacity fro that experience to be controlled from the outside. So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? ? I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage Which fact is that? That intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension?? Which intelligent behavior do you know that you can be certain exists without any subjective experience associated with it? I am aware of no such behavior. The only intelligent behavior I know with certainty that is always associated with subjective experience is my own. But I know with certainty there are 2 possibilities: 1) Intelligent behavior is always associated with subjective experience, if so then if a computer beats you at any intellectual pursuit then it has a subjective experience, assuming of course that you yourself are intelligent. And I'll let you pick the particular intellectual pursuit for the contest. 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). Yet you think that consciousness must have evolved. Yes. No contradiction there? No contradiction there if consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence, a massive? contradiction if it is not; so massive that human beings could not be conscious, and yet I am, and perhaps you are too. You think that every behavior in biology exists purely because of evolution Yes. ? except consciousness, which you have no explanation for My explanation is that intelligence produces consciousness, I don't know exactly how but if Evolution is true then there is a proof that it does. ? I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. A byproduct that does what??? A byproduct that produces consciousness. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension?? who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? The purpose of their attraction to each other. That's nice, but I repeat, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? ? Where do you think your intelligence to know this comes from? Surely it is the result in large part of Adenine and Thymine's contribution to the intelligence of DNA. If everything (except for some reason computers!) is intelligent, if even simple molecules are intelligent then the word has no meaning and is equivalent to nothing is intelligent or everything is klogknee or nothing is klogknee. Robots are something? ? No, they aren't something. That is just a little too silly to argue. You think that a picture of a pipe
Re: AGI
Hi John Mikes Intelligence is the ability to make decisions without outside help. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: yanniru Time: 2012-10-08, 16:07:09 Subject: AGI Dear Richard, I think the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to D. Deutsch. Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks for copying. It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with ramifications prima vista. What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well. ? I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability of reading 'inter' lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions. Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines (although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (L?'s) universal machine unidentified). Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical limits of information - the content of the actual MODEL of the world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. ? Human mind-capabilities, however,?(at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing machines. Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability - not so even the input from?he unknowable 'infinite complexity's' relations. ? Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for machines that work within such borders. ? I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent readings, provided that I get to it back. ? Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down ? John Mikes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There is no assumption that our knowledge of physics is complete; in fact if there were that assumption there would be no point in being a physicist, would there? As a matter of fact I believe that the basic physics of the brain has been understood for a long time and I challenge you to point out one thing that has been discovered in neuroscience which would surprise a chemist from the middle of last century. What you are saying is 'nobody thinks physics is complete', followed by 'everybody knows that the physics of the brain has been complete for a long time'. No, I said there is no *assumption* that our knowledge of physics is complete. Obviously, it isn't complete, since physics is still an active field. However, as a matter of scientific fact, there is no evidence that anything more exotic than organic chemistry is going on in the brain. There are many, many discoveries in neuroscience every year but none of them could be described as new physics. New physics in the brain would, for example, be a discovery that dark matter is instrumental in nerve conduction. But so far, it's just organic chemistry. This not only supports my point, but it brings up the more important point - the blindness of robustly left-hemisphere thinkers to identify their own capacity for denial. For me it's like a split brained experiment. I say 'the problem is that people think physics is complete' and you say 'no they don't. You can't show me any signs that physics of the brain isn't complete.' Total disconnect. You'll keep denying it too. Not your fault either, apparently, that's just the way a lot of intelligent people are wired. I have no idea if it's possible for people to consciously overcome that tendency...it would be like glimpsing yourself in the mirror before your image actually turned around. Neuroscience has been a very large, well-funded field for many decades. Can you point to any experiments at least hinting at new physics? But that is not relevant to this discussion. The question is whether the physics of the brain, known or unknown, is computable. If it is, If the physics of the brain is incomplete, then how could we say whether it is computable or not? To me, the color red is physical, so that any computation of the brain has to arrive at a computational result that is [the experience of seeing red]. I don't think that is remotely possible. As I have said many, many times in these discussions, I am happy to assume for the sake of argument that consciousness is *not* computable. The question being asked is whether the physical movement of the parts of the brain are computable. That means given a complete description of initial conditions, an adequate model and sufficient computing power, is it possible to predict the physical movement of the parts of the brain? This does *not* mean it is a practical likelihood, only a theoretical possibility. Indeed, an actual Turing machine, used in the formal definition of computable, is *not* physically possible. OK? If consciousness is not computable, and consciousness affects the physical movement of the parts of the brain, then the physical movement of the parts of the brain is not computable. OK? To put this another way, we would observe neurons (and I guess other cells too, if consciousness is all pervasive) doing stuff *contrary to the known laws of physics*. For if neurons only did stuff consistent with what we know about organic chemistry, and organic chemistry is assumed to be computable, then the physical movement of the parts of the brain would be computable too. OK? then in theory a computer could be just as intelligent as a human. If it isn't, then a computer would always have some deficit compared to a human. Maybe it would never be able to play the violin, cut your hair or write a book as well as a human. The deficiency is that it couldn't feel. It could impersonate a violin player, but it would lack character and passion, gravitas, presence. Just like whirling CGI graphics of pseudo-metallic transparent reflecty crap. It's empty and weightless. Can't you tell? Can't you see that? Again, I should not expect everyone to be able to see that. I guess I can only understand that I see that and know that you can see a lot of things that I can't as well. In your mind there is no reason that we can't eat broken glass for breakfast if we install synthetic stomach lining that doesn't know the difference between food and glass. Nothing I can say will give you pause or question your reasoning, because indeed, the reasoning is internally consistent. Again, I have assumed for the sake of argument that a computer cannot feel. But if the movement of the parts of the brain is computable, the computer will be able to behave just like a person, in every respect. After prolonged interaction with it an observer would guess that it had feelings even
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
That is true. To pressupose an experience of self in others is a leap on faith based on similarity. It is duck philosophy. What seems a Duck, must be a Duck. Even Hume had to limit its destructive philosophy to avoid self destructiveness. Because there are core beliefs that we don´t doubt, or we can not doubt seriously because we can´t accept that this is just a belief without acting self destructively. That is in the first place the reason why these beliefs exist: they must have been selected and hardcoded by evolution. That must be the ultimate meaning of truth in evolutionary epistemology. In the same way, a self conscious robot must have beliefs about itself and others. he believe that he is conscious. He can not conceive otherwise. And their sensations must be according with this belief. His belief can not be a boolean switch in a program. He must answer sincerely to questions about existence, perception and so on. But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. 2012/10/9 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Alberto G. Corona and Bruno, Perhaps I can express the problem of solipsism as this. To have a mind means that one can experience. Experiences are subjective and thus cannot be actually shared, the best one can do is share a description of the experience. If one cannot actually share another's experience, one cannot know if they actually had an experience-- that is, that they actually have a mind. Comp seems to avoid this insurmountable problem by avoiding the issue of whether the computer actually had an experience, only that it appeared to have an experience. So comp's requirement is as if rather than is. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 15:12:22 Subject: Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring ofbottom-up sensory info Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal : On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don? assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can
Can AGI be proven ?
Hi Stephen P. King I suppose AGI would be the Holy Grail of artificial intelligence, but I fear that only the computer can know that it has actually achieved it, for intelligence is subjective. Not that computers can't in principle be subjective, but that subjectivity (Firstness) can never be made public , only descriptions of it (Thirdness) can be made public. Firstness is the raw experience. The object or event as privately experienced. Unprovable. Since AGI is Firstness, it is not proveable. Thirdness is a description of that experience. The public expression of that private experience. Proveable yes or no. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:22:20 Subject: Re: The real reasons we don?_have_AGI_yet On 10/8/2012 1:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: except from The real reasons we don? have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch? recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel So in this view, the main missing ingredient in AGI so far is ?ognitive synergy?: the fitting-together of different intelligent components into an appropriate cognitive architecture, in such a way that the components richly and dynamically support and assist each other, interrelating very closely in a similar manner to the components of the brain or body and thus giving rise to appropriate emergent structures and dynamics. The reason this sort of intimate integration has not yet been explored much is that it? difficult on multiple levels, requiring the design of an architecture and its component algorithms with a view toward the structures and dynamics that will arise in the system once it is coupled with an appropriate environment. Typically, the AI algorithms and structures corresponding to different cognitive functions have been developed based on divergent theoretical principles, by disparate communities of researchers, and have been tuned for effective performance on different tasks in different environments. Making such diverse components work together in a truly synergetic and cooperative way is a tall order, yet my own suspicion is that this ? rather than some particular algorithm, structure or architectural principle ? is the ?ecret sauce? needed to create human-level AGI based on technologies available today. Achieving this sort of cognitive-synergetic integration of AGI components is the focus of the OpenCog AGI project that I co-founded several years ago. We?e a long way from human adult level AGI yet, but we have a detailed design and codebase and roadmap for getting there. Wish us luck! Hi Richard, ?? My suspicion is that what is needed here, if we can put on our programmer hats, is the programer's version of a BEC, Bose-Einstein Condensate, where every part is an integrated reflection of the whole. My own idea is that some form of algebraic and/or topological closure is required to achieve this as inspired by the Brouwer Fixed point theorem. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 13:35:28 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Bretn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A clearer definition of the self
Hi meekerdb The empiricists such as Hume and Locke maintained that all that we know has first arrived through our senses. I agree. The stuff of knowledge comes from below. But Kant showed that this is not enough, for our minds have to make mental sense of this data. Consciousness or intelligence is thus structured for this purpose. Our minds tell us what in particular we do know. Such logical structures intelligence uses cannot arrive through our senses, but must come platonically from above, so that the mental sense is finally arrived at using the platonic forms and structures from above. In the meeting place of the above and the below there exists, analogous to Maxwell's Demon, the active agent called the self. The self makes sense of sensual data and stores that in memory. We have learned something. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:19:52 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Beauty
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy The definition of beauty that I like is that beauty is unity in diversity. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53 Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason, Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of all partial computable functions and that for Steven Both abstractions, such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together from a primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate properties at all other that necessary possibility. It merely exists. If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 On Beauty, not a candidate for approximating that set, or for describing that which has no innate properties? Here the translation from Steven MacKenna: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube... and seeing Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc. all tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think Wow, that's true but simply hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise frame. I know, people want to keep separate art and science. But I am agnostic on this as composing and playing music just bled into engineering and mathematical problems and solutions, as well as programming and the computer on their own. I apologize in advance, if this is off-topic as I find the discussion here fascinating and hate interrupting it. Mark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Nature's firewall
Hi Stathis, The separation you missed is that mind and consciousness are subjective entities(not shareable), while computations are objective (shareable). Nature put a firewall between these so we don't get them confused. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 09:19:40 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Hi Stathis Papaioannou Computation can give you letters on a page. Are they conscious ? There's no way that I can think of however, to prove or disprove that objects are conscious or not, only that they may simulate consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 10:45:10 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Roger Clough Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 09:19:40 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Hi Stathis Papaioannou Computation can give you letters on a page. Are they conscious ? There's no way that I can think of however, to prove or disprove that objects are conscious or not, only that they may simulate consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 10:45:10 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Has man created an AGI ? Maybe ?
Hi meekerdb We don't know, nor can we ever know for certain, that man has created an AGI, because actual intelligence is subjective, so only the AGI itself can know if it is truly intelligent. The best we can do is test it to see if it acts as if it has intelligence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 17:18:59 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Just look at the Conjoined Twins video I posted. Those two people are genetically identical, occupy the same body, experience stimulation that is very similar, yet they *routinely* disagree. Similar isn't the same. But the behavior varies in similarity while their stimulation does not. Sure it does. They are not in exactly the same place. That's true but irrelevant. If they move to the left two feet so that Brittany is in Abby's position, Brittany doesn't become Abby. Because they're not in the same place in SPACETIME. We are talking about two people in the same body who act the same sometimes and completely different other times. This is not the result in air pressure differences in the room or the angle of incidence on their retina. How do you know that? There are differences and differences can be amplified. Even K_40 decays in their brain could trigger different thoughts. Haven't you heard of chaotic dynamics. Even perfectly identical systems can diverge in behavior due to infinitesimal differences in stimulation. Sure, but do they then converge again and again? Clearly they are each controlling their own behavior separately, even though the degree to which their stimulation from the outside world does not vary separately. But you don't know that. You are just looking at the current stimulation. Yet their behavior, even their internal structure, has been molded by different stimulations since they were embryos. I agree, they are different. How do they know how to speak in unison sometimes and they argue with each other at other times? The brain is modular. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi meekerdb Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 17:18:59 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Just look at the Conjoined Twins video I posted. Those two people are genetically identical, occupy the same body, experience stimulation that is very similar, yet they *routinely* disagree. Similar isn't the same. But the behavior varies in similarity while their stimulation does not. Sure it does. They are not in exactly the same place. That's true but irrelevant. If they move to the left two feet so that Brittany is in Abby's position, Brittany doesn't become Abby. Because they're not in the same place in SPACETIME. We are talking about two people in the same body who act the same sometimes and completely different other times. This is not the result in air pressure differences in the room or the angle of incidence on their retina. How do you know that? There are differences and differences can be amplified. Even K_40 decays in their brain could trigger different thoughts. Haven't you heard of chaotic dynamics. Even perfectly identical systems can diverge in behavior due to infinitesimal differences in stimulation. Sure, but do they then converge again and again? Clearly they are each controlling their own behavior separately, even though the degree to which their stimulation from the outside world does not vary separately. But you don't know that. You are just looking at the current stimulation. Yet their behavior, even their internal structure, has been molded by different stimulations since they were embryos. I agree, they are different. How do they know how to speak in unison sometimes and they argue with each other at other times? The brain is modular. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
more firewalls
Hi Richard Ruquist Nature has put a firewall between subjective entities such as monads and objective entities such as BECs or the manifolds. When I said attached I should have said associated to. There's no physical, only logical connections. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:35:34 Subject: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment Roger, Monads are everywhere, inside computers as well as humans, rocks and free space. Whatever allows monads to connect to physical objects may be operative for inanimates as well as animates. So the first step is to identify the connecting mechanism. For physical consciousness I conjecture the connection is based on BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates) in the monadic mind entangled with BECs in the brain. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs of disparate substances can still be entangled. So once a computer is designed with BECs as in the human brain then it may be capable of consciousness. Richard On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's inside do what it can do. Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of experience. Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or code. Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly available. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? ? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? How do you know? I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know because they have none, they only have cause and effect. How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to places to eat and sleep? And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future supercomputers and here you are ? anthropomorphizing simple chemicals. Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware?
Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week
Shades of things to come. What happens when we plug the economy of the entire world into mindless machines programmed to go to war against numbers. *Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week* http://www.cnbc.com/id/49333454 A single mysterious computer program that placed orders — and then subsequently canceled them — made up 4 percent of all quote traffic in the U.S. stock market last week, according to the top tracker of *high-frequency trading http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837548/?cid=187385High_Frequency_Trading * activity. The motive of the algorithm is still unclear. The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. Friday. “Just goes to show you how just one person can have such an outsized impact on the market,” said *Eric Hunsader http://www.cnbc.com/id/49216434/*, head of *Nanex http://nanex.net/* and the No. 1 detector of trading anomalies watching Wall Street today. “Exchanges are just not monitoring it.” Hunsader’s sonar picked up that this was a single high-frequency trader after seeing the program’s pattern (200 fake quotes, then 400, then 1,000) repeated over and over. Also, it was being routed from the same place, the * Nasdaq* [COMP 3112.35-23.84 (-0.76%) ]http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/COMP. “My guess is that the algo was testing the market, as high-frequency frequently does,” says Jon Najarian, co-founder of TradeMonster.com. “As soon as they add bandwidth, the HFT crowd sees how quickly they can top out to create latency.” *(Read More: Unclear What Caused Kraft Spike: Nanex Founderhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/49216434/ )* Translation: the ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity. The scariest part of this single program was that its millions of quotes accounted for 10 percent of the bandwidth that is allowed for trading on any given day, according to Nanex. (The size of the bandwidth pipe is determined by a group made up of the exchanges called the Consolidated Quote System.) *(Read More: **Cuban, Cooperman: Curb High-Frequency Trading*http://www.cnbc.com/id/49216430/ *)* “This is pretty out there to see this effect this many stocks at the same time,” said Hunsader. High frequency traders are doing anything to “tip the odds in their favor.” A Senate panel at the end of September sought answers on high-frequency trading as investigators look into the best way to stop wealth-destroying events such as the Knight Capital computer glitch in August and the market “Flash Crash” two years ago. *(Read More: Ex-Insider Calls High-Frequency Trading ‘Cheating’http://www.cnbc.com/id/49103708/?Ex_Insider_Calls_High_Frequency_Trading_Cheating )* Regulators are trying to see how they can rein in the practice, which accounts for 70 percent of trading each day, without slowing down progress and profits for Wall Street and the U.S. exchanges. RELATED LINKS - Cuban, Cooperman: Curb High-Frequency Tradinghttp://www.cnbc.com/id/49216430 - Do Markets Need a 'Kill Switch'? http://www.cnbc.com/id/49245253 - Ex-Insider: HFT Is 'Cheating' http://www.cnbc.com/id/49103708 - Will Glitches Get Worse? http://www.cnbc.com/id/48464725 “I feel a tax on order stuffing is what the markets need at this point,” said David Greenberg of Greenberg Capital. “This will cut down on the number of erroneous bids and offers placed into the market at any given time and should help stabilize the trading environment.” Hunsader warned that regulators better do something fast, speculating that this single program could have led to something very bad if big news broke or a sell-off occurred and one entity was hogging this much of the system -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/aVa0FXmOt-8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:38:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg They can only disagree about experiences that are spoken. You mean they can only verbally disagree. It is pretty clear that they can disagree about their taste in things without having spoken about them. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ex4ZOvVGYCAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: more firewalls
Hi Roger, What makes you think that what you claim is true? Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Nature has put a firewall between subjective entities such as monads and objective entities such as BECs or the manifolds. When I said attached I should have said associated to. There's no physical, only logical connections. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:35:34 Subject: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment Roger, Monads are everywhere, inside computers as well as humans, rocks and free space. Whatever allows monads to connect to physical objects may be operative for inanimates as well as animates. So the first step is to identify the connecting mechanism. For physical consciousness I conjecture the connection is based on BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates) in the monadic mind entangled with BECs in the brain. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs of disparate substances can still be entangled. So once a computer is designed with BECs as in the human brain then it may be capable of consciousness. Richard On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's inside do what it can do. Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of experience. Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or code. Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly available. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? ? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? How do you know? I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know because they have none, they only have cause and effect. How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to places to eat and sleep? And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future supercomputers and here you are ? anthropomorphizing simple chemicals. Why is everything
Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. I think you mean consciousness rather than intelligence. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Popper's faulty epistemology
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Popper's three worlds are related to but not exactly Peirces three categories: World 1 is the objective world, which I would have to call Category 0. World 2 is what Popper calls subjective reality, or what Peirce called Firstness World 3 is Popper's objective knowledge, which is Pierce's Thirdness. Popper may have included world 2 in what Peirce called Secondness, but it's not clear. Secondness is his missing step, it's the one in which your mind makes sense of your subjective perception. My own understanding is your mind compares what you see with what you already know and either identifies it as such or modifies it to another, newly invented or associated description. If you see two apples, it then calls the image two apples. Thirdness is what you then call it and can express to others. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 03:09:48 Subject: Re: The real reasons we don?_have_AGI_yet On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to Popperian epistemology can evolve. ?o sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.? ?he feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its turn not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea of a self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time which underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of today, and of tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 object, is itself partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; and the full consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.? Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/three-worlds.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Nature's firewall
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis, The separation you missed is that mind and consciousness are subjective entities(not shareable), while computations are objective (shareable). But we don't know the subjective qualities of a given computation, do we? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
the self as active agent
Hi meekerdb IMHO self is an active agent, something like Maxwell's Demon, that can intelligently sort raw experiences into meaningful bins, such as Kant's categories, thus giving them some meaning. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 02:16:22 Subject: Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don?_have_AGI_yet On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, ?? Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model.? They are not members of a social community.? Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conjoined Twins
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:32:19 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The subjective aspect (Firstness), some of which apparently each twin has, is not shareable, only descriptions of it (Thirdness) are shareable. Maybe not in these twins, but in these other, brain conjoined twins, Firstness IS SHARED. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI (start at 5:50 if you want to skip the human interest stuff) Proof. Craig Firstness. What is shareable is Thirdness. What cannot be shared is Firstness. Thirdness is the description of Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:02:27 Subject: Conjoined Twins Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby and Brittany: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at nearly the same time. I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing. Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TGERtHlMkLIJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ssA5349ARf8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conjoined Twins
On 08 Oct 2012, at 18:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby and Brittany: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at nearly the same time. I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar data with similar mechanisms, For non locality, you need same instead of similar. Of course you can say that the if-then-else subroutine, defined in some functional way, act no locally in many different brains and computers, but that does not give rise to the non-locality we can observe from being in the UD, or in Everett universal wave. but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing. Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this. I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On Beauty
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy The definition of beauty that I like is that beauty is unity in diversity. Hi Roger, As I mentioned, I think its very hard/perhaps impossible to tie down like that, even though I think I can grasp what you mean. For instance, concerning the definition you mentioned: is that diversity harmoniously completing itself, starkly contrasting itself, even in conflict with itself to appear unified on some other level? Picking up the last: you can have a narrative pitting protagonists against each other say in a film with heavy conflict. And their conflict produces a more convincing unified whole that is beautiful. Then take the wholeness of humans or machines on this planet and look at the conflict of war. Placing now aside, that people die physically in wars and not in fiction (there are many stuntmen that have died...) and pretending all were fiction to exercise more aesthetic, instead of moral, judgement: in both cases you have diversity as conflict and a wholeness (protagonists/whole film against vivid description of humanity in war). Still, Its really difficult to answer whether one is more beautiful than the other in some absolute sense, or to pin down properties or hierarchies that would make this so. But show a person both films you've made, and they will prefer one over the other. In other words, we know it when we meet it, or we see it in past or future through introspection. So employing fuzzy metaphors instead of defining it: it is a wild animal hard to catch, but universally present and always easily accessible. m Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53 Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason, Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of all partial computable functions and that for Steven Both abstractions, such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together from a primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate properties at all other that necessary possibility. It merely exists. If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 On Beauty, not a candidate for approximating that set, or for describing that which has no innate properties? Here the translation from Steven MacKenna: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube... and seeing Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc. all tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think Wow, that's true but simply hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise frame. I know, people want to keep separate art and science. But I am agnostic on this as composing and playing music just bled into engineering and mathematical problems and solutions, as well as programming and the computer on their own. I apologize in advance, if this is off-topic as I find the discussion here fascinating and hate interrupting it. Mark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 08 Oct 2012, at 20:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: Deutsch is right. Deutsch is not completely wrong, just unaware of the progress in theoretical computer science, which explains why some paths are necessarily long, and can help to avoid the confusion between consciousness, intelligence, competence, imagination, creativity. I have already explain why, since recently I think that all UMs are already conscious, including the computer you are looking at right now. But that consciousness is still disconnected, or only trivially connected, to you and the environment. Since always I think PA, ZF, and all Löbian machines are as conscious as you and me. But still not connected, except on mathematical notion. I have explained and justified that proving in formal theory, or in a way that we think we could formalize if we and the times, is a way to actually talk to such machine, and the 8 hypostases are why any such little machine can already told us. They are sort of reincarnation of plotinus, to put it in that way. It is easy to confuse them with zombie, as the actual dialog has to be made by hand, with transpiration. But such machine are already as conscious as all Löbian entities, from the octopus to us. Consciousness and intelligence are both not definable, and have complex positive and negative feedback on competence. General intelligence of machine needs *us* opening our mind. The singularity is in the past. Now we can only make UMs as deluded as us, for the best, or the worth. They have already a well defined self, a repesentation of the self, some connection with truth (where the experience will come from), but here the organic entities and billions years of advantage. But they evolves also, and far quicker that the organic. No progress in AI? I see explosive progress. Especially in the 1930 for the main thing: the discovery of the Universal Machine (UM). Searle is right. Searle is invalid. Old discussion. He confuses levels of description. There is nothing to add to Hofstadter and Dennett critics of the argument in Mind'I. It is the same error as confusing proving A and emulating a machine proving A. ZF can prove the consistency of PA, and PA cannot. But PA can prove that ZF can prove the consistency of PA. The first proof provide an emulation of the second, but PA and ZF keeps their distinct identities in that process. Bruno Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without personal investment, there is no drive to develop right hemisphere awareness - to look around for enemies and friends, to be vigilant. These kinds of capacities cannot be burned into ROM, they have to be discovered through unscripted participation. They have to be able to lie and have a reason to do so. I'm not sure about Deutsch's purported Popper fetish, but if that's true, I can see why that would be the case. My hunch is that although Ben Goertzel is being fair to Deutsch, he may be distorting Deutsch's position somewhat as far as I question that he is suggesting that we invest in developing Philosophy instead of technology. Maybe he is, but it seems like an exaggeration. It seems to me that Deutsch is advocating the very reasonable position that we evaluate our progress with AGI before doubling down on the same strategy for the next 60 years. Nobody whats to cut off AGI funding - certainly not me, I just think that the approach has become unscientific and sentimental like alchemists with their dream of turning lead into gold. Start playing with biology and maybe you'll have something. It will be a little messier though, since with biology and unlike with silicon computers, when you start getting close to something with human like intelligence, people tend to object when you leave twitching half-persons moaning around the laboratory. You will know you have real AGI because there will be a lot of people screaming. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-iG7-y2ddXsJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this
Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring of bottom-up sensory info
On 08 Oct 2012, at 21:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. If reified as real, which the machine is obliged to do. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. The hallucination has communicable components, and in the case of physics, sharable one. Like second-life video game, except that its roots are more solid as they rely on arithmetic directly. (No bug at that level). This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. Yes. The laws of arithmetic (or the laws of your favorite UM: it does not matter which one, as that would change only superficially the ontology, but not what is really real, which is epistemological (physics is first person plural epistemology with comp, as I argue at least). If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? Computation = Sigma_1 truth. But from inside the machine are confronted to all Sigma_i truth, with oracles, and even beyond. The nature of the well behaving hallucination is truth, the whole arithmetical truth (and beyond, as we can't know that comp is true, and that plays some role). Bruno 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don´t assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen, mind and matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture is more that matter is an iceberg tip of reality. Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if matter? Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip! do we can know about it this submerged computational nature? In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can know relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest is the external and internal math structures in arithmetic. which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the one that we perceive?. Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution gives it too. The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy. Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs, but this is a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business. What the computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May be you answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not realize it) Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs a God (arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical truth as we usually defined it (it is only an approximation). By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by proposing a computational
Re: AGI
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote: Dear Richard, I think the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to D. Deutsch. Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks for copying. It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with ramifications prima vista. What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well. I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability of reading 'inter' lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions. Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines (although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal machine unidentified). Unidentified?I give a lot of examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me, and the octopus. In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you. The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are blinded by our competences). It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but I am not sure. Bruno Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical limits of information - the content of the actual MODEL of the world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing machines. Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite complexity's' relations. Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for machines that work within such borders. I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent readings, provided that I get to it back. Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down John Mikes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Universe on a Chip
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes? How the hell should I know if computers have conscious experiences? How the hell should I know if people have conscious experiences? All I know for certain is that some things external to me display intelligent behavior and some things do not, from that point on everything is conjecture and theory; I happen to think that intelligence is associated with consciousness is a pretty good theory but I admit it's only a theory and if your theory is that you're the only conscious being in the universe I can't prove you wrong. Is it a fact that you have conscious experiences? Yes, however I have no proof of that, or at least none I can share with anyone else, so I would understand if you don't believe me; however to believe me but not to believe a computer that made a similar claim just because you don't care for the elements out of which it is made would be rank bigotry. Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. The difference between influence and control is just one of degree not of kind. Usually lots of things cause us to do what we do, if all of them came from the outside then its control, if only some of the causes were external and some were internal, such as memory, then its influence. intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension? but what example or law are you basing this on? Who says this is a fact other than you? It almost seems that you're trying to say that intelligent behavior gives an organism no advantage over a organism that is stupid, but nobody is that stupid; so what are you saying? Who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? I give up, who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? The only intelligent behavior I know with certainty that is always associated with subjective experience is my own. But I know with certainty there are 2 possibilities: 1) Intelligent behavior is always associated with subjective experience, if so then if a computer beats you at any intellectual pursuit then it has a subjective experience, assuming of course that you yourself are intelligent. And I'll let you pick the particular intellectual pursuit for the contest. 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. I choose 3) The existence of intelligent behavior is contingent upon recognition and interpretation by a conscious agent. That's EXACTLY the same as #1, you're saying that intelligent behavior without consciousness is impossible, I can't prove it but I suspect you're probably right. And if we are right then a computer beating you at a intellectual task is evidence that it is conscious, assuming only that you yourself are intelligent and conscious. Behavior can be misinterpreted by a conscious agent as having a higher than actual quality of subjectivity when it doesn't But that's what I'm asking, what behavior gave you the clue that it would be a misinterpretation to attribute consciousness to something? This started with your question Which intelligent behavior do you know that you can be certain exists without any subjective experience associated with it? I said there was no behavior to enable us to determine what is conscious and what is not, all you're basically saying is that conscious intellectual behavior is intellectual behavior in which consciousness is involved; and I already knew that, and it is not helpful in figuring out what is conscious and what is not. No being that we know of has become conscious by means of intelligence alone. Other than ourselves we know with certainty of no other being that is conscious PERIOD. All we can do is observe intelligent behavior and make guesses from there. Every conscious being develops sensorimotor and emotional awareness before any cognitive intelligence arises. How they hell do you know? Babies cry before they talk. Yes, without a doubt babies exhibit crying behavior before talking behavior, their brains need further development and they need to gain more knowledge before they can advance from one sort of behavior to another; and that is perfectly consistent with my belief that emotion is easy but intelligence is hard. You think that every behavior in biology exists purely because of evolution Every biological structure exists purely because of Evolution, however one of those physical structures, the brain, allows for a far far richer range of behavior than Evolution can provide, behaviors contingent on astronomically complex
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:17:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. Nice. It can be tricky because perception and sensation can both be seen as kinds of awareness and some people use the term consciousness as a synonym for awareness. This is not entirely incorrect. It's like saying that cash and credit cards are both kind of money and that economics is a synonym for money. It can be if you want it to be, it's just a word that we define by consensus usage, but if we want to get precise, then I try to have a vague taxonomy of sensation perception feeling awareness consciousness so that consciousness is an awareness of awareness. The continuum is logarithmic, but not discretely so because of the nature of subjectivity ins not discrete but runs the full spectrum from discrete to nebulous. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. Here it is, Bruno. This is where I can see you saying exactly what I used to believe was true, but now I understand it 180 degrees away from the *whole* truth. All that you have to do is drop the assumption that each sense is a separate discrete process built up from nothing and see it as a sieve, filtering out or receiving particular ranges of non-illusory experience. The filtered sensation do not need to be conditioned mechanically or mechanically, they aren't objects which need to be assembled. The unification of the senses is like the nuclear force - unity is the a priori default, it is only the processes of the brain which modulate the obstruction of that unity. Sanity does not need to be propped up and scripted like a program, it is a familiar attractor (as opposed to strange attractor) of any given inertial frame. The only illusion we have is when our non-illusory capacity to tell the difference between conflicting inertial frames of perception, cognition, sensation, etc recovers that difference and identifies with one sense frame over another, because of a perception of greater sense or significance. It's not subject to emulation. It actually has to make more sense to the person. The content doesn't matter. You can have a dream that makes no cognitive sense at all but without your waking life to compare it to, you have no problem accepting that there is a donkey driving you to work. Realism is not emergent functionally or assembled digitally from the bottom up, it is recovered apocatastatically from the top down. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rQor-nft0osJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done such a good job, I now don't have to! My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it when it happens. Strictly speaking, John Case has refuted Popperian epistemology(*), in the sense that he showed that some Non Popperian machine can recognize larger classes and more classes of phenomena than Popperian machine. Believing in some non refutable theories can give an advantage with respect of some classes of phenomena. The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Not sure it is more creative than the UMs, the UD, the Mandelbrot set, or arithmetic. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. I agree. That's probably why people take time to understand that UMs and arithmetic are already creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Yes. With is good uses, and its misuses. Popper just made precise what science is, except for its criteria of interesting and good theory. In fact Popper theory was a real interesting theory, in the sense of Popper, as it was refutable. But then people should not be so much astonished that it has been refuted (of course in a theoretical context(*)). I can accept that Popper analysis has a wide spectrum where it works well, but in the foundations, it cannot be used a dogma. Bruno (*) CASE J. NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New- York, Buffalo. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 09 Oct 2012, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Unlike PA and ZF and Lôbian entity which have already the maximal possible noyion of self (both in the 3p and 1p sense). But PA and ZF have no amount at all of reasonable local incarnation (reasonable with respect of doing things on Earth, or on Mars). Mars Rovers is far beyond PA and ZF in that matter, I mean of being connected to some real mundane life. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
I thin that natural selection is tautological (is selected what has fitness, fitness is what is selected) but at the same time is not empty and it is scientifc because it can be falsified. At the same time, if it is agreed that is the direct mechanism that design the minds then this is the perfect condition for a foundation of eplistemology, and an absolute meaning of truth. 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own detailed response to David Deutsch's op ed, but Ben Goertzel has done such a good job, I now don't have to! My response, similar to Ben's is that David does not convincingly explain why Popperian epistemology is the secret sauce. In fact, it is not even at all obvious how to practically apply Popperian epistemology to the task at hand. Until some more detailed practical proposal is put forward, the best I can say is, meh, I'll believe it when it happens. Strictly speaking, John Case has refuted Popperian epistemology(*), in the sense that he showed that some Non Popperian machine can recognize larger classes and more classes of phenomena than Popperian machine. Believing in some non refutable theories can give an advantage with respect of some classes of phenomena. The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Not sure it is more creative than the UMs, the UD, the Mandelbrot set, or arithmetic. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. I agree. That's probably why people take time to understand that UMs and arithmetic are already creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Yes. With is good uses, and its misuses. Popper just made precise what science is, except for its criteria of interesting and good theory. In fact Popper theory was a real interesting theory, in the sense of Popper, as it was refutable. But then people should not be so much astonished that it has been refuted (of course in a theoretical context(*)). I can accept that Popper analysis has a wide spectrum where it works well, but in the foundations, it cannot be used a dogma. Bruno (*) CASE J. NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-York, Buffalo. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
On 09 Oct 2012, at 11:50, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona and Bruno, Perhaps I can express the problem of solipsism as this. To have a mind means that one can experience. Hmm... Not really, with my terminology. A mind is not enough for an experience. You need a soul. It is a fixed point in a transformation of the mind to itself. I can conceive mind without soul. But OK. It is a detail perhaps here. Experiences are subjective and thus cannot be actually shared, the best one can do is share a description of the experience. Not really. You can share the pleasure you have about a movie, by describing the movie and your feeling. But, if you know your partner very well, you can share the experience of the movie, partially, by going together at the movie projection. Sharing does not necessitate communication. If one cannot actually share another's experience, one cannot know if they actually had an experience-- that is, that they actually have a mind. Indeed. But even in dream we have instinctive empathy, and have good reason (even if *sometimes* false) to bet other people have experience. Comp seems to avoid this insurmountable problem by avoiding the issue of whether the computer actually had an experience, only that it appeared to have an experience. So comp's requirement is as if rather than is. Not at all. This is BEH-MEC (behavioral mechanism). Already STRONG-AI (weaker than comp) makes precise that it postulates that machine can be conscious, even independently of behavior. Then COMP is stronger that STRON AI, as it postulates that YOU are a machine, and that your experience (which is of course assumed to exist for the rest making sense) is invariant for some digital transformation. Please try to not deform the hypothesis. Comp is a postulate in a theory of consciousness, experience, subjective life, etc. It is an axiom, or an hypothesis, or a question (quasi synomym for my purpose) of the cognitive science. We have COMP === STRONG AI BEH-MEC, But none of those arrows can be reversed, logically. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 15:12:22 Subject: Re: What Kant did: Consciousness is a top-down structuring ofbottom-up sensory info Bruno: It could be that the indeterminacy in the I means that everything else is not a machine, but supposedly, an hallucination. But this hallucination has a well defined set of mathematical properties that are communicable to other hallucinated expectators. This means that something is keeping the picture coherent. If that something is not computation or computations, what is the nature of this well behaving hallucination according with your point of view? 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal : On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Roger: ... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true. Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and psychology still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp particular mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which can be shown contradictory(*). The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature of the laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane on the planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane). OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to comp at least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the neoplatonists already did. I don? assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the ultimate nature or reality Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the comp frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be enough. Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can describe completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the essence of what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or Peano Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like new person, and it put only more mess in Platonia. Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the mind along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in category theory between topological spaces and algebraic structures (as Stephen told me and he can explain you) . Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen,
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... I don't see why not. A genetic-algorithm might be a subprogram that seeks an efficient code for some function within some larger program. Of course it would need some definition or measure of what counts as 'efficient'. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Experiences are not provable because they are private, personal.
On 09 Oct 2012, at 12:21, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and Stathis, 1. Only entities in spacetime physically exist, and thus can be measured and proven. Too much vague to me. I am OK, and I am not OK, for different reasonable intepretations of what you say here. I doubt something in physics can be proved in physics, about reality. You need a theology or a metaphysics, which needs axioms too. 2. Experiences exist only in the mind, not in spacetime, because they are not extended in nature. They are subjective. Beyond spacetime. Superphysical. Unproveable to others, but certain to oneself. OK. 3. Numbers, being other than oneself, might possibly have experiences, but they cannot share them with us. Number cannot have experiences, per se. They just get involved in complex arithmetical relation which supports a person's life. Only the person is conscious, but the person supervene or on a quite complex clouds of numbers and oracle, in highly complex relationships. They can only share descriptions of experiences, not the experiences themselves (or even if those experiences exist). Yes. Like us. And PA and ZF already stay mute when asked about the experience they can have.Their G* (guardian angel, as I call it a long time ago) already explain why they stay mute, as they know that communicating that they have experience will make people believe that they have been programmed to say that. They already try to avoid being treated as zombie, apparently. Bruno Roger rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 10:19:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Hi Roger, On 08 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou I would put it that mind is superphysical. Beyond spacetime. Supernatural as a word carries too much baggage. With comp, the natural numbers are supernatural enough. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no possibility of anything other than more physics. There is no hint of any kind that these laws should lead to any such thing as an 'experience' or awareness of any kind. You beg the question 100% and are 100% incapable of seeing that you are doing it. Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural, isn't it? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 09 Oct 2012, at 12:34, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness had to arise before language. Apes are conscious. OK. I think that all animals and plants are conscious, although not on a really common scale with most animals. I think all animals above the octopus, including some spiders, are self-conscious. Today. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:23:18 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. You are almost right but have it upside down. When someone gets knocked unconscious, can they continue to behave intelligently? Can a baby wake up from a nap and become conscious before they learn language? What would lead us to presume that consciousness itself could supervene on intelligence except if we were holding on to a functionalist metaphysics? Clearly human intelligence in each individual supervenes on their consciousness and clearly supercomputers can't feel any pain or show any signs of fatigue that would suggest a state of physical awareness despite their appearances of 'intelligence'. If you flip it over though, you are right. Everything is conscious to some extent, but not everything is intelligent in a cognitive sense. The assumption of strong AI is that we can take the low hanging fruit of primitive consciousness and attach it to the tree tops of anthropological quality intelligence and it will grow a new tree into outer space. Craig Bretn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ij3bVaKTduQJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction. On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be arbitrarily speedable. Of course the rtick is in on almost all inputs which means all, except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution than reason. Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + self- reference + arithmetical truth). Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. ? You mean it is a zombie? I can't conceive consciousness without a soul. Even if only the universal one. So I am not sure what you mean by soul. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:21:59 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes? How the hell should I know if computers have conscious experiences? How the hell should I know if people have conscious experiences? I didn't ask which ones you know are conscious, I asked which ones you think are conscious. I have no trouble at all saying that zero computers are conscious and that all living people have had conscious experiences. All I know for certain is that some things external to me display intelligent behavior and some things do not, Why do you think that you know that? What makes a behavior intelligent? Over how long a time period are we talking about? Is a species as a whole intelligent? Are ecosystems intelligent? Caves full of growing crystals? from that point on everything is conjecture and theory; I happen to think that intelligence is associated with consciousness is a pretty good theory but I admit it's only a theory and if your theory is that you're the only conscious being in the universe I can't prove you wrong. When did I ever say that I am the only conscious being in the universe? Is it a fact that you have conscious experiences? Yes, however I have no proof of that, or at least none I can share with anyone else, so I would understand if you don't believe me; however to believe me but not to believe a computer that made a similar claim just because you don't care for the elements out of which it is made would be rank bigotry. It's not bigotry, it's an observation that computers don't do anything remotely implying consciousness of any kind. They are literally automatons. Their inorganic composition only gives us a way of understanding why it is the case that assembling something which can be publicly controlled is mutually exclusive from growing something which can be privately experienced. Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. The difference between influence and control is just one of degree not of kind. That's your assumption. I am sympathetic to it to the extent that all difference between degrees and kinds are also a difference between degree not of kind. I am influenced by traffic lights, but I still have to have control of the car I am driving. Control is a continuum. If you say that control is subsumed completely by influence, then you are denying that there is anything which can be discerned by degree. Control does not automatically arise from a lack of influence. A rock will not sing showtunes if given a chance. Usually lots of things cause us to do what we do, If they caused everything to happen without us, then there would be no us. Why would there be? if all of them came from the outside then its control, if only some of the causes were external and some were internal, such as memory, then its influence. We are still the ones who evaluate the influences and contribute directly to our actions. intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension? but what example or law are you basing this on? Who says this is a fact other than you? It almost seems that you're trying to say that intelligent behavior gives an organism no advantage over a organism that is stupid, but nobody is that stupid; so what are you saying? What does that have to do with this idea of yours that intelligence can exist without consciousness? You are trying to dodge the question. Who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? I give up, who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? You. Very insistently: intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension? Having difficulty remembering your edicts? The only intelligent behavior I know with certainty that is always associated with subjective experience is my own. But I know with certainty there are 2 possibilities: 1) Intelligent behavior is always associated with subjective experience, if so then if a computer beats you at any intellectual pursuit then it has a subjective experience, assuming of course that you yourself are intelligent. And I'll let you pick the particular intellectual pursuit for the contest. 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. I choose 3) The existence of intelligent behavior is contingent upon recognition and interpretation by a conscious agent.
Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
Hi Roger Clough, Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. Exactly. And above the level of Löbianity, or with the induction axioms, I mean at a rather precise technical level, the machine is or can be aware of such limitations. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 13:35:28 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Bretn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A clearer definition of the self
On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb The empiricists such as Hume and Locke maintained that all that we know has first arrived through our senses. I agree. The stuff of knowledge comes from below. Perhaps, but we don't know that. Cf: the dream argument. This is already a theory, presuming things like senses, and things perturbing the senses. But Kant showed that this is not enough, for our minds have to make mental sense of this data. Good point. Consciousness or intelligence is thus structured for this purpose. OK. Our minds tell us what in particular we do know. Such logical structures intelligence uses cannot arrive through our senses, but must come platonically from above, so that the mental sense is finally arrived at using the platonic forms and structures from above. OK. In the meeting place of the above and the below there exists, analogous to Maxwell's Demon, the active agent called the self. The self makes sense of sensual data and stores that in memory. We have learned something. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 14:19:52 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside environment the less conscious you become. Huh? Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. How could you possibly know that, considering that John has accumulated many years of stimulation? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week
Thanks Craig. Interesting. Bruno On 09 Oct 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: Shades of things to come. What happens when we plug the economy of the entire world into mindless machines programmed to go to war against numbers. Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week http://www.cnbc.com/id/49333454 A single mysterious computer program that placed orders — and then subsequently canceled them — made up 4 percent of all quote traffic in the U.S. stock market last week, according to the top tracker of high-frequency trading activity. The motive of the algorithm is still unclear. The program placed orders in 25-millisecond bursts involving about 500 stocks, according to Nanex, a market data firm. The algorithm never executed a single trade, and it abruptly ended at about 10:30 a.m. Friday. “Just goes to show you how just one person can have such an outsized impact on the market,” said Eric Hunsader, head of Nanex and the No. 1 detector of trading anomalies watching Wall Street today. “Exchanges are just not monitoring it.” Hunsader’s sonar picked up that this was a single high-frequency trader after seeing the program’s pattern (200 fake quotes, then 400, then 1,000) repeated over and over. Also, it was being routed from the same place, the Nasdaq [COMP 3112.35 -23.84 (-0.76%) ]. “My guess is that the algo was testing the market, as high-frequency frequently does,” says Jon Najarian, co-founder of TradeMonster.com. “As soon as they add bandwidth, the HFT crowd sees how quickly they can top out to create latency.” (Read More: Unclear What Caused Kraft Spike: Nanex Founder) Translation: the ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity. The scariest part of this single program was that its millions of quotes accounted for 10 percent of the bandwidth that is allowed for trading on any given day, according to Nanex. (The size of the bandwidth pipe is determined by a group made up of the exchanges called the Consolidated Quote System.) (Read More: Cuban, Cooperman: Curb High-Frequency Trading) “This is pretty out there to see this effect this many stocks at the same time,” said Hunsader. High frequency traders are doing anything to “tip the odds in their favor.” A Senate panel at the end of September sought answers on high- frequency trading as investigators look into the best way to stop wealth-destroying events such as the Knight Capital computer glitch in August and the market “Flash Crash” two years ago. (Read More: Ex-Insider Calls High-Frequency Trading ‘Cheating’) Regulators are trying to see how they can rein in the practice, which accounts for 70 percent of trading each day, without slowing down progress and profits for Wall Street and the U.S. exchanges. RELATED LINKS Cuban, Cooperman: Curb High-Frequency Trading Do Markets Need a 'Kill Switch'? Ex-Insider: HFT Is 'Cheating' Will Glitches Get Worse? “I feel a tax on order stuffing is what the markets need at this point,” said David Greenberg of Greenberg Capital. “This will cut down on the number of erroneous bids and offers placed into the market at any given time and should help stabilize the trading environment.” Hunsader warned that regulators better do something fast, speculating that this single program could have led to something very bad if big news broke or a sell-off occurred and one entity was hogging this much of the system -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/aVa0FXmOt-8J . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
It may be a zombie or not. I can´t know. The same applies to other persons. It may be that the world is made of zombie-actors that try to cheat me, but I have an harcoded belief in the conventional thing. Maybe it is, because otherwise, I will act in strange and self destructive ways. I would act as a paranoic, after that, as a psycopath (since they are not humans). That will not be good for my success in society. Then, I doubt that I will have any surviving descendant that will develop a zombie-solipsist epistemology. However there are people that believe these strange things. Some autists do not recognize humans as beings like him. Some psychopaths too, in a different way. There is no authistic or psichopathic epistemology because the are not functional enough to make societies with universities and philosophers. That is the whole point of evolutionary epistemology. 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. ? You mean it is a zombie? I can't conceive consciousness without a soul. Even if only the universal one. So I am not sure what you mean by soul. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Universe on a Chip
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more herehttp://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?__snids__=6179 http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like. What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine. The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ee_vcX_1ymcJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: AGI
On 10/9/2012 8:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you. The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are blinded by our competences). At least they would be smart enough to have adopted base 8 numbering. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conjoined Twins
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons. I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral synchronization that we would expect from two single individual persons. Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI (skip to 5:23 if you want) That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones who share nothing from the neck up. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wUU57vdgPAUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 10/9/2012 12:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... I don't see why not. A genetic-algorithm might be a subprogram that seeks an efficient code for some function within some larger program. Of course it would need some definition or measure of what counts as 'efficient'. Brent -- How about capable of finding the required solution given a finite quantity of resources. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction. Hi Bruno, Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it is more clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computations obtains? On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be arbitrarily speedable. This is a measure issue, no? Of course the trick is in on almost all inputs which means all, except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution than reason. OK. Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + self-reference + arithmetical truth). Bruno So you are equating selection by fitness in a local environment with a halting oracle? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: AGI
Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of detailed
description what the universal machine consists of and how it functions
(maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive ID. Your lot of
examples rather denies that you have one. And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them, it may not be enough for me. I
don't really know HOW conscious I am.
I like your counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the wisdom (maybe it should read: the intelligence) of the
oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known circumstances -
maybe it is competence.
To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as impediment
('blinded by').
John M
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Richard, I think the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to
D. Deutsch.
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks
for copying.
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
ramifications prima vista.
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate to
Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the capability
of reading 'inter'
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to realize the
'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical science' definitions.
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
(although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
machine unidentified).
Unidentified?I give a lot of examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me, and
the octopus.
In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to
consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which
case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as we are
blinded by our competences).
It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but I am
not sure.
Bruno
Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical limits of
information - the content of the actual MODEL of the world we live with
by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such
limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and
AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND.
Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview)
are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND
our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power. Accordingly we
MAY get input from more than the factual content of the MODEL. On such
(unspecified) influences may be our creativity based (anticipation of
Robert Rosen?) what cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best
computing machines.
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's capability
- not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite complexity's'
relations.
Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible for
machines that work within such borders.
I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
readings, provided that I get to it back.
Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
**googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Creativity
On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers... JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration': I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years. At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes) with including Robert Rosen's anticipation concept as applied to my own world-view (belief!) of *agnosticism*: there is an infinite complexity we cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?). This constitutes our 'image' of our world - indeed the model of it we can muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of conventional sciences.). Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure *anticipation. * If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach. It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers, beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say: yesterday). No consequences drawn. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
Maybe I will take you up on this - I think my uni library card expired years ago, and its a PITA to renew. However, since one doesn't need a mind to be creative (and my interest is actually in mindless creative processes), I'm not sure exactly how relevant something titled Mechanism of Mind it will be. BTW - very close to sending you a finished draft of Amoeba's Secret. I just have to check the translations I wasn't sure of now that I have access to a dictionary/Google translate, and also redo the citations in a more regular manner. Cheers On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, not least because of the fact that the author autographed it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Creativity
John, Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity. Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers... JM: Not that I want to produce such 'single moment of inspiration': I gave some thought to the concept of creativity over the past 20 years. At this moment I stand (and my stance is likely to undergo further changes) with including Robert Rosen's anticipation concept as applied to my own world-view (belief!) of agnosticism: there is an infinite complexity we cannot know, not even approach and from it we get info-morsels from time to time into OUR world. We are not up to consider those 'morsels' by their real and full nature, only adjusted to our mental capabilities and the so far circumscribed 'world' we live in(?). This constitutes our 'image' of our world - indeed the model of it we can muster in our actual mental inventory (including the application of conventional sciences.). Our curiosity in topics MAY (or may not?) trigger topical info and it is up to us whether we do, or don't pay attention and - maybe - consider them as worthwhile pursuing - which is the way I figure anticipation. If we relate to such anticipation with a positive feedback, we may fail, or succeed, the latter callable the 'creative approach. It goes beyond our 'model', beyond what we could feed into our computers, beyond the inventory (status quo ante?) of what we already knew (I say: yesterday). No consequences drawn. John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
It just may provide you that flash of insight you hanker for; that's my grand hope, anyway. here's a snippet: There may be no reason to say something until after it has been said. Once it has been said a context develops to support it, and yet it would never have been produced by a context. It may not be possible to plan a new style in art, but once it comes about, it creates its own validity. It is usual to proceed forward step by step until one has got somewhere. But - it is also possible to get there first by any means and then look back and find the best route. A problem may be worked forward from the beginning but it may also be worked backward from the end. Instead of proceeding steadily along a pathway, one jumps tpo a different point, or several different points in turn, and then waits for them to link together to form a coherent pattern. It is in the nature of the self-maximising system of the memory-surface that is mind to create a coherent pattern out of such separate points. If the pattern is effective then it cannot possibly matter whether it came about in a sequential fashion or not. A frame of reference is a context provided by the current arrangement of information. It is the direction of development implied by this arrangement. One cannot break out of this frame of reference by working from within it. It maybe necessary to jump out, and if the jump is successful then the frame of reference is itself altered. (p. 240 - description of the process known as Lateral Thinking.) Give me a bell in about a week and we will jump in somewhere for a beer and I will pass you this volume (if still interested after reading the above) - I will have a little less Uni work to do for a short while; I may be able to get down to a bit of finessing of our translation of Bruno's Amoebas. Kim Jones On 10/10/2012, at 8:16 AM, Russell Standish wrote: Maybe I will take you up on this - I think my uni library card expired years ago, and its a PITA to renew. However, since one doesn't need a mind to be creative (and my interest is actually in mindless creative processes), I'm not sure exactly how relevant something titled Mechanism of Mind it will be. BTW - very close to sending you a finished draft of Amoeba's Secret. I just have to check the translations I wasn't sure of now that I have access to a dictionary/Google translate, and also redo the citations in a more regular manner. Cheers On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:52:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: Please, please read Edward de Bono's book The Mechanism of Mind for some genuine insights into creativity and how this comes about in mind. Russell if you can't track down a copy I'll lend you mine but it's a treasured object, not least because of the fact that the author autographed it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields). Solving it may be the work of a single moment of inspiration (I wish), but more likely it will involve incremental advances in topics such as information, complexity, emergence and other such partly philosophical topics before we even understand what it means for something to be open-ended creative. Popperian epistemology, to the extent it has a role, will come much further down the track. Cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
