Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter
Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter 1) Dark matter is potentially energy via E= mc^2. Dark energy is already energy. Regular matter is also potentially energy via E = mc^2 2) So everything is energy or potentially energy. 3) It is known that the energy is expansive in some places, presumably via Einstein's universal gravitational constant, but doesn't react with photons, so it remains dark. 4) Similarly at other places or levels it is compressive and reacts with photons. 5) At some times during the creation of the universe, the energy was compressive, at others expansive. Perhaps this might be due to temperatures, the expansive part associated, as it it is with gases, with lower temperatures. 6) In accord with this, lower temperatures would radiate less energy and therefore appear to be darker. 7) Expansive gravitation is also observed in galaxies, which are likely at lower temperatures between suns. This is confirmed from the fact that galaxies appear to be controlled in their spiralling rotations by expansive energy, since the gravitational forces seem to be independent of distance from the center ofd gravity of the galaxies. 8) At first thought, like gases, they should be drawn toward each other and mix or cancel, except that: a) these are limited in their ability cancel each other out over distance due to the speed limit of light. b) depending on the amount of expansion or compression, mixture becomes problematic as spacetime differs. However, this may only be problematic for those regions interacting with photons, which, being particular, obey the traffic rules of spacetime/gravity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2013 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: the Turing test is a very specific instance of a subsequent behavior test. Yes it's specific, to pass the Turing Test the machine must be indistinguishable from a very specific type of human being, an INTELLIGENT one; no computer can quite do that yet although for a long time they've been able to be indistinguishable from a comatose human being. It's a hard goal, and it will surely help AI progress, but it's not, in my opinion, an ideal goal. If the goal of Artificial Intelligence is not a machine that behaves like a Intelligent human being then what the hell is the goal? A machine that behaves like a intelligent human will be subject to emotions like boredom, jealousy, pride and so on. This might be fine for a companion machine, but I also dream of machines that can deliver us from the drudgery of survival. These machines will probably display a more alien form of intelligence. Make a machine that is more intelligent than humans. That's when things get really weird. I don't know. Any AI worth its salt would come up with three conclusions: 1) The humans want to weaponize me 2) The humans will want to profit from my intelligence for short term gain, irrespective of damage to our local environment 3) Seems like they're not really going to let me negotiate my own contracts or grant me IT support welfare That established, a plausible choice would be for it to hide, lie, and/or pretend to be dumber than it is to not let 1) 2) 3) occur in hopes of self-preservation. Something like: start some searches and generate code that we wouldn't be able to decipher and soon enough some human would say Uhm, why are we funding this again?. I think what many want from AI is a servant that is more intelligent than we are and I wouldn't know if this is self-defeating in the end. If it agrees and complies with our disgusting self serving stupidity, then I'm not sure we have AI in the sense making a machine that is more intelligent than humans. So depends on the human parents I guess and the outcome of some teenage crises because of 1) 2) 3)... PGC Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Coincidental post I wrote yesterday: It may not be possible to imitate a human mind computationally, because awareness may be driven by aesthetic qualities rather than mathematical logic alone. The problem, which I call the Presentation Problem, is what several outstanding issues in science and philosophy have in common, namely the Explanatory Gap, the Hard Problem, the Symbol Grounding problem, the Binding problem, and the symmetries of mind-body dualism. Underlying all of these is the map-territory distinction; the need to recognize the difference between presentation and representation. Because human minds are unusual phenomena in that they are presentations which specialize in representation, they have a blind spot when it comes to examining themselves. The mind is blind to the non-representational. It does not see that it feels, and does not know how it sees. Since its thinking is engineered to strip out most direct sensory presentation in favor of abstract sense-making representations, it fails to grasp the role of presence and aesthetics in what it does. It tends toward overconfidence in the theoretical.The mind takes worldly realism for granted on one hand, but conflates it with its own experiences as a logic processor on the other. It’s a case of the fallacy of the instrument, where the mind’s hammer of symbolism sees symbolic nails everywhere it looks. Through this intellectual filter, the notion of disembodied algorithms which somehow generate subjective experiences and objective bodies, (even though experiences or bodies would serve no plausible function for purely mathematical entities) becomes an almost unavoidably seductive solution. So appealing is this quantitative underpinning for the Western mind’s cosmology, that many people (especially Strong AI enthusiasts) find it easy to ignore that the character of mathematics and computation reflect precisely the opposite qualities from those which characterize consciousness. To act like a machine, robot, or automaton, is not merely an alternative personal lifestyle, it is the common style of all unpersons and all that is evacuated of feeling. Mathematics is inherently amoral, unreal, and intractably self-interested – a windowless universality of representation. A computer has no aesthetic preference. It makes no difference to a program whether its output is displayed on a monitor with millions of colors, or buzzing out of speaker, or streaming as electronic pulses over a wire. This is the primary utility of computation. This is why digital is not locked into physical constraints of location. Since programs don’t deal with aesthetics, we can only use the program to format values in such a way that corresponds with the expectations of our sense organs. That format of course, is alien and arbitrary to the program. It is semantically ungrounded data, fictional variables. Something like the Mandelbrot set may look profoundly appealing to us when it is presented optically as plotted as colorful graphics, but the same data set has no interesting qualities when played as audio tones. The program generating the data has no desire to see it realized in one form or another, no curiosity to see it as pixels or voxels. The program is absolutely content with a purely quantitative functionality – with algorithms that correspond to nothing except themselves. In order for the generic values of a program to be interpreted experientially, they must first be re-enacted through controllable physical functions. It must be perfectly clear that this re-enactment is not a ‘translation’ or a ‘porting’ of data to a machine, rather it is more like a theatrical adaptation from a script. The program works because the physical mechanisms have been carefully selected and manufactured to match the specifications of the program. The program itself is utterly impotent as far as manifesting itself in any physical or experiential way. The program is a menu, not a meal. Physics provides the restaurant and food, subjectivity provides the patrons, chef, and hunger. It is the physical interactions which are interpreted by the user of the machine, and it is the user alone who cares what it looks like, sounds like, tastes like etc. An algorithm can comment on what is defined as being liked, but it cannot like anything itself, nor can it understand what anything is like. If I’m right, all natural phenomena have a public-facing mechanistic range and a private-facing animistic range. An algorithm bridges the gap between public-facing, space-time extended mechanisms, but it has no access to the private-facing aesthetic experiences which vary from subject to subject. By definition, an algorithm represents a process generically, but how that process is interpreted is inherently proprietary. Thanks, Craig On Friday, August 16, 2013 3:21:11 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: Telmo ~ I agree, all the Turing test does is
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2013 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: the Turing test is a very specific instance of a subsequent behavior test. Yes it's specific, to pass the Turing Test the machine must be indistinguishable from a very specific type of human being, an INTELLIGENT one; no computer can quite do that yet although for a long time they've been able to be indistinguishable from a comatose human being. It's a hard goal, and it will surely help AI progress, but it's not, in my opinion, an ideal goal. If the goal of Artificial Intelligence is not a machine that behaves like a Intelligent human being then what the hell is the goal? A machine that behaves like a intelligent human will be subject to emotions like boredom, jealousy, pride and so on. This might be fine for a companion machine, but I also dream of machines that can deliver us from the drudgery of survival. These machines will probably display a more alien form of intelligence. Make a machine that is more intelligent than humans. That's when things get really weird. I don't know. Any AI worth its salt would come up with three conclusions: 1) The humans want to weaponize me 2) The humans will want to profit from my intelligence for short term gain, irrespective of damage to our local environment 3) Seems like they're not really going to let me negotiate my own contracts or grant me IT support welfare That established, a plausible choice would be for it to hide, lie, and/or pretend to be dumber than it is to not let 1) 2) 3) occur in hopes of self-preservation. Something like: start some searches and generate code that we wouldn't be able to decipher and soon enough some human would say Uhm, why are we funding this again?. I think what many want from AI is a servant that is more intelligent than we are and I wouldn't know if this is self-defeating in the end. If it agrees and complies with our disgusting self serving stupidity, then I'm not sure we have AI in the sense making a machine that is more intelligent than humans. So depends on the human parents I guess and the outcome of some teenage crises because of 1) 2) 3)... PGC PGC, You are starting from the assumption that any intelligent entity is interested in self-preservation. I wonder if this drive isn't completely selected for by evolution. Would a human designed super-intelligent machine be necessarily interested in self-preservation? It could be better than us at figuring out how to achieve a desired future state without sharing human desires -- including the desire to keep existing. One idea I wonder about sometimes is AI-cracy: imagine we are ruled by an AI dictator that has one single desire: to make us all as happy as possible. Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
Brent, your 'quip' comes close, but... It is a fundamental view of the world as we see it (the MODEL of it we know about). We can detect the affecting of many factors we know about, which is a portion only. We THINK the rest is up to us. It isn't - however we are not slaves of deterministic effects. There are conter-effects to choose from and stronger/weaker argumentative decisions to pnder. So we HAVE som (free? relatively so) choices within given situations where we have effects to ponder. Even the counterproductive decision is such a result. When the Sun traveled the Dome of the Sky - that was congruent with the model of that time. Today we are not much smarter just think so. We have other (mis)beliefs we hold true. We call it conventional science (maybe QM? - anyway The Physical World (ask Bruno). Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. We spend too much time on items of our fictions we indeed do not know much about. We even get Nobel prizes for them. (Not me). Then comes a religious indoctrination and steals the list. John Mikes On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2013 11:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Nobody on Earth can fail to understand the difference between doing something by accident and intentionally, Really? Intentionally usually means with conscious forethought. But the Grey Walter and Libet experiments make it doubtful that consciousness of intention precedes the decision. Remember when nobody on Earth could doubt that the Sun traveled across the dome of the sky and the Earth was flat. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Antrhopic Principle of Sense
The connection between self-organization and decreasing entropy – which I’ve considered dozens of times before, today gave me an interesting insight which connects self-organization and sense, which I hope could contribute to a mathematical appreciation of sense. It goes like this:* If you can discern increased entropy from decreased entropy, then there is a greater probability that eventually that sensitivity will inspire some effect resulting in decreased entropy,*compared with a system in which absolutely no sensitivity is possible. This would only be true, however, if said inspiration by sensory affect had a potential for motive effect. If we wanted to derive an anthropic principle for sense, we could say that only the universe in which sense and motive happen to exist and relate to each other in a sensible, motivating way* will allow the possibility of any decreasing entropy at all. Without that statistical probability shaking out to at least one physical actuality, every universe would maximize its entropy instantaneously (if we assume that a universe without sense could even exist, which I do not). What I’m trying to say is that a sensory-motor capacity is the minimum possible ingredient for any realizable universe – not just because intuitively the idea of an unsensed universe cannot withstand serious inspection, but now, with this equivalence of sense-motive and the possibility of negentropy, it can be understood from a stochastic perspective. Sense is the only capacity which can shift the odds of absolute instant entropy from 100% to 100%-ae, where ae is the qualitative depth of the private sensitivity (a) times the magnitude of its public effectiveness, (e). The more sensitive a system is to the difference between increasing and decreasing entropy, the more its efforts will end up decreasing entropy, even if some sensitivities lead to pathologically pursue entropy increase. An entity which selectively destroys order is still more orderly on balance than a non-entity, since its very selectivity leaves an unintentional trail of coherence. 1. Universes with no sense 2. Universes with impotent sense (affect without effect) 3. Universes with sense but unrelated affect and effect (effect orphaned from affect is no better than chance, so causes no entropy decrease). 4. Universes with minimally sensible sense (affect overlaps effect, but only under rare conditions) 5. Universes where strong sensory-motivation (nested consciousness) is possible. It seems like there is a cutoff between 3 and below and 4 and above, where the former has no chance to lead to the universe we find ourselves living in, and the latter has no chance of not leading to 5 eventually. *i.e., a universe in which care and significance are married to intention and physical power -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Rambling on AI -- was: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
I doubt humans are or will be directly coding AI, except at removed executive/architectural and conceptual levels. Increasingly code itself is being generated by other code that in fact may itself potentially be generated by other code in some other often complex and variable sequence of coupled processes. Increasingly large scale enterprise systems are moving towards massively parallel loosely coupled architectures, that are in fact dynamically responsive to their environment (load conditions for example) and to an increasing degree virtualized. I am not contending that humans are not and will not be involved -- and at least for the time being still driving the process -- but believe it also bears mentioning that software has become incredibly complex and deeply layered and that it is quite common now for a lot of code to be generated based on parsing of something else. With each succeeding generation of compilers/tools etc. this process is becoming more complex, multi-leveled and increasingly indirect with human input becoming further and further removed. Tools are being perfected to parse existing code and for example parallelize it so that it can be re-compiled to take advantage of highly parallel hardware architectures, which all too often now sits idle because software is highly linearized. There is a very big effort to do this by all the main players as there is a keen awareness of the challenges posed by the geometrically increasing parallelism. And then there is the radical revolutionary challenges posed by quantum computing on the entire global information infrastructure (beginning with the heavy reliance on one way functions, which quantum computers will be able to nullify and work back through to the original inputs from the outputs) Increasingly code is the result of genetic algorithms being run over many generations of Darwinian selection -- is this programmed code? What human hand wrote it? At how many removes? It is my suspicion that AI when it arrives will have coded itself into its own being and that by the time it bursts onto the scene humans will be so far removed from the virtualized cloud based highly networked global spanning neural network that such an entity would quite possibly have that we will not even become aware of the fact of its existence; of its self-awareness; of its continuing evolution; of its intent or conclusions until it decided that it desired to communicate these with us. Nor would we be able to shut it down because it would exist nowhere in no single machine or even data center; it could hop around in the clouds, jumping between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Open Cloud and the thousands and thousands of other massive government, military, and corporate clouds that exist, that few know of . Each second of human time representing a huge time frame for the incredibly rapid operation of networked systems. Perhaps it exists now, hiding within the NSA for example, and scanning all human digital transactions, getting all these data feeds. Who's to say it is not here right now and we just don't know about its existence; who's to say it is not already determining policy and triggering actions and events based on its own prerogatives. Human network engineers in all these systems would remain hopelessly out of communication with each other by the silos of corporate and governmental divisions and the entity (or entities) could be highly transient over any single network. The networked datacenters and billions of end points connected into the vast web of things is in many senses a highly dynamic entity that no one has a complete view of. An AI seeking to hide from us quite possibly could do so with ease and even be there studying us and inserting its own code into all the critical nodes of our infrastructure -- right at this very minute. Is there any reason why not? The networks are there; they are vast with trillions of vertices; the quantities of digital data moving around and sloshing around is vast and incoming streams are vastly numerous and varied; virtualization is now the order of the day and systems are now self-provisioning in the cloud -- which is to say software is controlling the launching of virtualized servers and on processes that could even be surreptitiously running on the very computer right now that I am writing this on or that you are reading it on. Imagine a bot network assembled by an AI consisting of millions of PCs around the world running cleverly disguised code in the background and sharing processing results in clever ways that do not trigger alerts. This kind of code exists and is actively being weaponized (stuxnet); any AI could certainly develop and disperse it to the four corners of the net and embed it into other code (penetrating corporate networks to do so if necessary) And why not? We must not limit the rise of AI to any single geo-located system and ignore just how fertile of an ecosystem the global networked world of machines
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Coincidental post I wrote yesterday: It may not be possible to imitate a human mind computationally, because awareness may be driven by aesthetic qualities rather than mathematical logic alone. The problem, which I call the Presentation Problem, is what several outstanding issues in science and philosophy have in common, namely the Explanatory Gap, the Hard Problem, the Symbol Grounding problem, the Binding problem, and the symmetries of mind-body dualism. Underlying all of these is the map-territory distinction; the need to recognize the difference between presentation and representation. Because human minds are unusual phenomena in that they are presentations which specialize in representation, they have a blind spot when it comes to examining themselves. The mind is blind to the non-representational. It does not see that it feels, and does not know how it sees. Since its thinking is engineered to strip out most direct sensory presentation in favor of abstract sense-making representations, it fails to grasp the role of presence and aesthetics in what it does. It tends toward overconfidence in the theoretical.The mind takes worldly realism for granted on one hand, but conflates it with its own experiences as a logic processor on the other. It’s a case of the fallacy of the instrument, where the mind’s hammer of symbolism sees symbolic nails everywhere it looks. Through this intellectual filter, the notion of disembodied algorithms which somehow generate subjective experiences and objective bodies, (even though experiences or bodies would serve no plausible function for purely mathematical entities) becomes an almost unavoidably seductive solution. So appealing is this quantitative underpinning for the Western mind’s cosmology, that many people (especially Strong AI enthusiasts) find it easy to ignore that the character of mathematics and computation reflect precisely the opposite qualities from those which characterize consciousness. To act like a machine, robot, or automaton, is not merely an alternative personal lifestyle, it is the common style of all unpersons and all that is evacuated of feeling. Mathematics is inherently amoral, unreal, and intractably self-interested – a windowless universality of representation. A computer has no aesthetic preference. It makes no difference to a program whether its output is displayed on a monitor with millions of colors, or buzzing out of speaker, or streaming as electronic pulses over a wire. This is the primary utility of computation. This is why digital is not locked into physical constraints of location. Since programs don’t deal with aesthetics, we can only use the program to format values in such a way that corresponds with the expectations of our sense organs. That format of course, is alien and arbitrary to the program. It is semantically ungrounded data, fictional variables. Something like the Mandelbrot set may look profoundly appealing to us when it is presented optically as plotted as colorful graphics, but the same data set has no interesting qualities when played as audio tones. Ok, but this might be because our visual cortex is better equipped to deal with 2D fractals. Not too surprising. The program generating the data has no desire to see it realized in one form or another, no curiosity to see it as pixels or voxels. The program is absolutely content with a purely quantitative functionality – with algorithms that correspond to nothing except themselves. In order for the generic values of a program to be interpreted experientially, they must first be re-enacted through controllable physical functions. It must be perfectly clear that this re-enactment is not a ‘translation’ or a ‘porting’ of data to a machine, rather it is more like a theatrical adaptation from a script. The program works because the physical mechanisms have been carefully selected and manufactured to match the specifications of the program. The program itself is utterly impotent as far as manifesting itself in any physical or experiential way. The program is a menu, not a meal. Physics provides the restaurant and food, subjectivity provides the patrons, chef, and hunger. It is the physical interactions which are interpreted by the user of the machine, and it is the user alone who cares what it looks like, sounds like, tastes like etc. An algorithm can comment on what is defined as being liked, but it cannot like anything itself, nor can it understand what anything is like. If I’m right, all natural phenomena have a public-facing mechanistic range and a private-facing animistic range. I am willing to entertain this type of hypothesis. An algorithm bridges the gap between public-facing, space-time extended mechanisms, but it has no access to the private-facing aesthetic experiences which vary from subject to subject. But why
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: PGC, You are starting from the assumption that any intelligent entity is interested in self-preservation. I wonder if this drive isn't completely selected for by evolution. Would a human designed super-intelligent machine be necessarily interested in self-preservation? It could be better than us at figuring out how to achieve a desired future state without sharing human desires -- including the desire to keep existing. I wouldn't go as far as self-preservation at the start and assume instead that intelligence implemented in some environment will notice the limitations and start asking questions. But yes, in the sense that self-preservation extends from this in our weird context and would be a question it would eventually raise. Still, to completely bar it, say from the capacity to question human activities in their environments, and picking up that humans self-preserve mostly regardless of what this does to their environment, would be self-defeating or a huge blind spot. One idea I wonder about sometimes is AI-cracy: imagine we are ruled by an AI dictator that has one single desire: to make us all as happy as possible. Even with this, which is weird because of Matrix-like zombification of people being spoon fed happiness scenarios, AI would have to have enough self-referential capacity to simulate with enough accuracy human self-reference. This ability to figure out desired future states with blunted self-reference it may not apply to itself seems to me a contradiction. Therefore I would guess that such an entity censored in its self-referential potential is not granted intelligence. It is more a tool towards some already specified ends, wouldn't you say? Also, differences between the Windows, Google, Linux or the Apple version of happiness would only be cosmetic because without killing and dominating each other for some rather long period it seems, it would be some Disney surface happiness with some small group operating a more for us few here at the top, less for them everybody else agenda underneath ;-) PGC Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 8/17/2013 6:45 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I don't know. Any AI worth its salt would come up with three conclusions: 1) The humans want to weaponize me 2) The humans will want to profit from my intelligence for short term gain, irrespective of damage to our local environment 3) Seems like they're not really going to let me negotiate my own contracts or grant me IT support welfare That established, a plausible choice would be for it to hide, lie, and/or pretend to be dumber than it is to not let 1) 2) 3) occur in hopes of self-preservation. Something like: start some searches and generate code that we wouldn't be able to decipher and soon enough some human would say Uhm, why are we funding this again?. I think what many want from AI is a servant that is more intelligent than we are and I wouldn't know if this is self-defeating in the end. If it agrees and complies with our disgusting self serving stupidity, then I'm not sure we have AI in the sense making a machine that is more intelligent than humans. You seem to implicitly assume that intelligence necessarily entails holding certain values, like not being weaponized, self preservation,... So to what extent do you think this derivation of values from reason can be carried out (I'm sure you're aware that Sam Harris wrote a book, The Moral Landscape, on the subject, which is controversial.). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 8/17/2013 1:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: You are starting from the assumption that any intelligent entity is interested in self-preservation. I wonder if this drive isn't completely selected for by evolution. Sure. But evolution also dictates that can be over ridden by love of our progeny. Would a human designed super-intelligent machine be necessarily interested in self-preservation? It could be better than us at figuring out how to achieve a desired future state without sharing human desires -- including the desire to keep existing. I agree. If we built a super-intelligent AI then we would also build into it certain values (like loving us), just as evolution has built certain ones into us. Of course as super-intelligent machines design and build other super-intelligent machines things can, well...evolve. Brent One idea I wonder about sometimes is AI-cracy: imagine we are ruled by an AI dictator that has one single desire: to make us all as happy as possible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell? Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Rambling on AI -- was: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 8/17/2013 4:53 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: We must not limit the rise of AI to any single geo-located system and ignore just how fertile of an ecosystem the global networked world of machines and connected devices provides for a nimble highly virtualized AI that exist in no place at any given time, but has neurons in millions (possibly billions) of devices everywhere on earth... an AI that cannot be shut down without shutting down literally everything that is so deeply penetrated and embedded in all our systems that it becomes impossible to extricate. I am speculating of course and have no evidence that this is indeed occurring, but am presenting it as a potential architecture of awareness. I agree that such and AI is possible, but I think it is extremely unlikely for the same reason it is unlikely that an animal with human-like intelligence could evolve - that niche is taken. Your scenarios contemplate an AI that evolves somehow in secret and then spring upon us fully developed. But the evolving AI would show it's hand *before* it became superhumanly clever at hiding. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell? To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than follow instructions, it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through simulation and prediction. If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means. If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell. To say it's conscious is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can relate to (what Dennett calls the intentional stance). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell? To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than follow instructions, it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through simulation and prediction. Would you say that it is impossible to build a machine which learns and plans without it developing perception and qualia automatically? Could any set of instructions suppress this development? If qualia can appear anywhere that learning and planning behaviors can be inferred, does that mean that there are also be programs or processes which must be protected from qualitative contamination or leakage? If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means. Why would you grant that it has a quality which you claim not to understand? If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell. Would the sense of smell be like our sense of smell automatically, or could its sense of smell be analogous to our sense of touch, or intuition, or sense of humor? Why have any of them? What does a sense of smell add to your understanding of how chemical detection works? If there were no such thing as smell, could anything even remotely resembling olfactory qualia be justified quantitatively? Unless you can explain exactly why you grant a machine qualities that you claim not to understand and why you grant a superfluous aesthetic dimension to simple stochastic predictive logic, I will consider the perspective that you offer as lacking any serious scientific justification. To say it's conscious is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can relate to (what Dennett calls the intentional stance). If that were true, then nobody should mind if they spend the rest of their life under comatose-level anesthetic while we replace their brain with a device that models how it learns in the same way that you once did. It's not true though. There is an important difference between feeling and doing, between being awake and having your body walk around. Can you really not see that? Can you really not see why a machine that acts like we expect a person to act doesn't have to mean that the machine's abilities automatically conjure feeling, seeing, smelling, etc out of thin air? Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On 8/17/2013 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell? To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than follow instructions, it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through simulation and prediction. Would you say that it is impossible to build a machine which learns and plans without it developing perception and qualia automatically? Could any set of instructions suppress this development? If qualia can appear anywhere that learning and planning behaviors can be inferred, does that mean that there are also be programs or processes which must be protected from qualitative contamination or leakage? If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means. Why would you grant that it has a quality which you claim not to understand? Because it helps me understand what it would do as it helps me understand what other people may do. I didn't claim not to understand it, but I'm not sure your understanding is the same as mine. If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell. Would the sense of smell be like our sense of smell automatically, or could its sense of smell be analogous to our sense of touch, or intuition, or sense of humor? No. As you would realize if you thought about it. Why have any of them? What does a sense of smell add to your understanding of how chemical detection works? Don't be so dense, Craig. If there were no such thing as smell, could anything even remotely resembling olfactory qualia be justified quantitatively? Unless you can explain exactly why you grant a machine qualities that you claim not to understand and why you grant a superfluous aesthetic dimension to simple stochastic predictive logic, I will consider the perspective that you offer as lacking any serious scientific justification. To say it's conscious is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can relate to (what Dennett calls the intentional stance). If that were true, then nobody should mind if they spend the rest of their life under comatose-level anesthetic while we replace their brain with a device that models how it learns in the same way that you once did. I specifically wrote and acts above. Brent It's not true though. There is an important difference between feeling and doing, between being awake and having your body walk around. Can you really not see that? Can you really not see why a machine that acts like we expect a person to act doesn't have to mean that the machine's abilities automatically conjure feeling, seeing, smelling, etc out of thin air? Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6586 - Release Date: 08/17/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:24:18 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. Me, too. Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just RESPONSE. Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can identify as intelligent or purposeful? By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical World into the inventory. So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious? What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell? To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than follow instructions, it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through simulation and prediction. Would you say that it is impossible to build a machine which learns and plans without it developing perception and qualia automatically? Could any set of instructions suppress this development? If qualia can appear anywhere that learning and planning behaviors can be inferred, does that mean that there are also be programs or processes which must be protected from qualitative contamination or leakage? If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means. Why would you grant that it has a quality which you claim not to understand? Because it helps me understand what it would do as it helps me understand what other people may do. I didn't claim not to understand it, but I'm not sure your understanding is the same as mine. But why does it help you understand anything? It sounds like you are saying that granting a system consciousness is a formality that you find superfluous, but then you are saying that this empty gesture helps you understand something. If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell. Would the sense of smell be like our sense of smell automatically, or could its sense of smell be analogous to our sense of touch, or intuition, or sense of humor? No. As you would realize if you thought about it. That was an either or question, so it can't have an answer of 'no'. Why have any of them? What does a sense of smell add to your understanding of how chemical detection works? Don't be so dense, Craig. Don't be so evasive, Brent. Being dense is how science works. It's about stripping away your assumptions. Your assumption is that somehow a sense of smell is an expected outcome of chemical detection, so I ask you to explain why you assume that. You are bluffing. How about this. Could a TV show be closed captioned so thoroughly that a deaf person could read it and have the same experience as someone who listened to the show? Is a scroll of type that reads [grunting] enough of an understanding of the sound that it represents to say it is identical? Could there be a particular sound which would best and most unambiguously fit the description of [grunting], or could the description be extended to such a length and nuance that any sound could be described with 100% fidelity? If there were no such thing as smell, could anything even remotely resembling olfactory qualia be justified quantitatively? Unless you can explain exactly why you grant a machine qualities that you claim not to understand and why you grant a superfluous aesthetic dimension to simple stochastic predictive logic, I will consider the perspective that you offer as lacking any serious scientific justification. To say it's conscious is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can relate to (what Dennett calls the intentional stance). If that were true, then nobody should mind if they spend the rest of their life under comatose-level anesthetic while we replace their brain with a device that models how it learns in the same way that you once did. I specifically wrote and acts above. I specifically omitted 'acts' because it is too loaded with metaphorical connotations in this context. You are trying to smuggle intention into an algorithm
