Re: The UD as a knotted string

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Bruno,

   All of Lou's ideas have a common thread, but I wonder which one's you
have in mind.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 25 Sep 2016, at 16:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason why the UD string is *not* a 1d topological object?
>
>
> Computability theory is dimensionless (cf the SMN theorem and/or the
> recursive bijection).
>
> But that is for the 3p description.
>
> Some topology, and perhaps some notion of dimension can emerge from the
> structure on the UD imposed by the intensional variants of self-reference,
> and that is indeed the case for S4Grz1 and X1*, if you remember.
>
>
>
> If it is a 1d topological string, can it be knotted? If it can be knotted,
> can the reflexivity ideas of Lou Kauffman be applied?
>
>
>
> Hopefully. Open problem. In fact I expect some "knot" structure to arise
> from an abstract Temperley-Lieb Algebra related to the graded structure of
> the variants of Z1* and X1* (with []^n p & <>^m p & p and m < n: they have
> a similar quantization and quantum logical structure). But without some
> optimization of the G/G* theorem prover, this remains work for the future
> generation. Incidentally, this is more related with some other work by Lou
> Kauffman.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> For example: https://youtu.be/f_8eCnaxPzc?t=35m32s
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/EWfG5GyN4qM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The UD as a knotted string

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

Is there any reason why the UD string is *not* a 1d topological object? If 
it is a 1d topological string, can it be knotted? If it can be knotted, can 
the reflexivity ideas of Lou Kauffman be applied? For 
example: https://youtu.be/f_8eCnaxPzc?t=35m32s

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

I apologize but it seems that none of us has time to explain other people's
ideas to each other or to read their papers for ourselves.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt.
>
>
> or not halt. You limit yourself to halting computation.
>
> If each halting computation is simpler than arbitrary computations, it
> happens that the notion of halting computations is more complex than the
> notion of arbitrary computations.
>
> For example, there is no universal halting machine, and there is no UD
> computting all and only all halting computations.
>
> The only way to generate all halting computations necessitate the
> generations of all computations, the halting one and the non halting. There
> is no algorithmic means to separate the halting machine from the non
> halting one.
>
> yet, the halting computations, when you get them all, is what structure
> the "measure space", and that is exploited to get the measure one case by
> the intensional ("material") variant of the self-reference logic,
> restricted to the "halting computations", modeled by the true sigma_1
> sentences.
>
>
>
> Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines...
>
>
> ?
>
> We seem to miss a precise idea of what you are talking about, I'm afraid.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> ​Yes, sorta.​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> ​Yes, sorta.​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>
>
> ?
>
> Possibly in a quite novel non standard sense, but I'm afarid this could
> lead to confusion, especially with beginners.
>
> The UD is typically a program without input. You enter its code in the
> language of some universal machine, without giving it any input, and it
> runs forever, meaning it has no output.
>
> Extensionally, it is equivalent with the empty function from the empty set
> to the empty set (the unique element of 0^0 in set theoretical term, with 0
> identified with the empty set).
>
> Intensionally, assuming computationalism it is all activities of all
> machines in all locally consistent context.
>
> Some would like to add, all thoughts, but the thoughts remain stable and
> make possibly sense only on the infinities on which the First Person
> Indeterminacy operates.
>
> In the 3-1 picture, we can attach a consciousness to a 
> program/machine/3-p-representation...,
> it is often polite, but in the 1-p picture, that is, from the first person
> perspective "you" are related to an infinity (2^aleph_0) of computational
> histories. The UD "runs" you on all real oracles, notably.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
Can the UD diagonalize with almost all possible versions of itself? I have
forgotten some details...


-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

That's a good example, actually!

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> Can you give an example?  What I'm led to think of is something like:
> % Add two and two
> print "4"
> halt
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
> machines...
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> ​Yes, sorta.​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecu

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
machines...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> ​Yes, sorta.​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> ​It has itself as an input. :-P​
>
>
> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
> I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>

​Yes, sorta.​



>
>
> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
>
> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an input
> there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>

​It has itself as an input. :-P​



>
>
> Brent
>
>This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
> universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
> I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
> is the TauChain.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
>> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
   This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
is the TauChain.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
> coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
>> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
>> order of the threads.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
>> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
>> labels, not the change itself.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>>>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>>>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>>>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>>>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>>>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>>>
>>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point
>>> a process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness
>>> unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from
>>> the physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning
>>> consciousness can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>>> sent in double exemplars.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>>> that you can assume.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.go

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have
a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble
with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still
suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this
problem, but we may lose Turing completeness. I would happily trade
completeness for correctness.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38160/computable-nonstandard-models-for-weak-systems-of-arithemtic/121252

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> OK. In the 3-1 picture, where we look at the cloud of true (and prouvable)
> sigma_1 sentences, that seems quite reasonable.
>
> Before smoking salvia, I would have added: but *only* in the 3-1 picture.
> I would have defended the idea that in the 1p picture, the (1p) subjective
> experience is bounded to get some duration/subjective-time aspects, like
> Brouwer, Bergson, Dogen and other Heracliteans seemed to claim, and even
> like the universal machine seems to claim ([]p & p, the 1p,  leads to a
> logic of intuitionist time) but salvia succeeded in making me doubt about
> this. Salvia can be *quite* dissociative.
>
> Still today, I doubt that consciousness without time makes subjective
> sense, but I believe there might be an altered consciousness state where we
> feel to live the contrary.  Coming back from that state is a highly
> surprising and highly confusing experience. We can memorize only a piece of
> that coming back.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
> order of the threads.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
> labels, not the change itself.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>>
>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
>> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
>> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
>> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
>> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>
>>
>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>> sent in double exemplars.
>>
>>
>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>> that you can assume.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in 

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> Yet one subjective experiences duration and order.
>
> I think you've misplaced the concrete.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
labels, not the change itself.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>
> Bruno
>
> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
> sent in double exemplars.
>
>
> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
> that you can assume.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Stathis,

   I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
   That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
theory.
   Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
could point me to?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:13 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> The starting point of computationalism is that you can replace your brain
> with a machine. If you can, then consciousness supervenes on a physical
> process of the machine. Thought A supervenes on process a and thought B
> supervenes on process B. A and B are unaffected if the timing, order or
> duration of a and b are changed. A and B are unaffected if there are copies
> of processes a and b up to an infinite number, as long as there is at least
> one of each. A and B are unaffected if a and b are paused and restarted at
> arbitrary points; we have then a1, a2, b1, b2 and A1, A2, B1, B2, but there
> is no subjective consequence to splitting A and B.
>
> If A and B are the observer moments and they can be rearranged and split
> up any way without changing the stream of subjective experience, then in a
> sense their being rearranged and split up is only meaningful because it can
> be defined for the physical processes on which they supervene.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

Speaking of time: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04759

A minimalist approach to conceptualization of time in quantum theory
H. Kitada <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Kitada_H/0/1/0/all/0/1>, J.
Jeknic-Dugic
<https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Jeknic_Dugic_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>, M.
Arsenijevic
<https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Arsenijevic_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>, M.
Dugic <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Dugic_M/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 15 Jun 2016 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04759v1>), last
revised 4 Sep 2016 (this version, v2))

Ever since Schrodinger, Time in quantum theory is postulated Newtonian for
every reference frame. With mathematical rigor, we show that the concept of
the so-called Local Time allows avoiding the postulate. In effect, time
appears as neither fundamental nor universal on the quantum-mechanical
level while being consistently attributable to every, at least
approximately, closed quantum system as well as to every of its
(conservative or not) subsystems.


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/2016 6:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 14/09/2016 10:13 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> That understanding of an "observer moment" appears to undermine the "Yes
> Doctor" scenario. The point of YD, it seems to me, is that one can replace
> oneself with a computer running some program -- the digital simulation at
> the basis of mechanism. Such a simulation, being a single computation, can
> be stopped and restarted at will without the observer being conscious of
> anything. If consciousness, or "observer moments", are intrinsically made
> up of an infinite number of threads, then this is not possible, and YD
> fails.
>
>
> Right, except I take the other fork.  I think you can stop and restart a
> consciousness - with a small gap; and if you can it contradicts Bruno's
> model of a single consciousness being a kind of statistical mechanics over
> UD threads.  That model is motivated by Everett in which there are many
> possible evolutions of the wave function which are equivalent at the
> classical level (where thoughts are instantiated).  But Everett and all QM
> assume a background time in which evolution takes place.  Bruno intends
> that physical time emerge from the model.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination,

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

"...an "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and
there is no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same
time"."

   I agree that there is no natural preference for a basis of the threads,
but ISTM that each Intelligence has its very own basis of biases which it
"determines" as its optimal preference in a moment by moment adaptation on
surfaces of constant time. There is some merit in the capacity to "look
ahead" over multiple moves, but from what I have studied so far, there are
rapidly diminishing returns when one is considering environments that are
not fixed - as real world environments tend to be.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

Not to rehash an old chestnut, but can a bit dance on an infinitesimal?

On Sep 13, 2016 10:22 AM, "Stathis Papaioannou"  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   Is there any consideration of the duration of the period of time of the 
moment? Are they assumed to have vanishingly small durations?

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 7:44:16 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Charles Goodwin  > wrote: 
> > Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things 
> with 
> > Liz the other day and we came across a sticking point in what I think 
> (from 
> > memory) is step 7 of the UDA. Maybe you can help? 
> > 
> > I'm assuming AR, "Yes, Doctor" and so on. At step 7 we reach the point 
> where 
> > we assume that a physical Universal Dovetailer can be created and that 
> it 
> > runs forever, and ask what is the probability that my observer moments 
> are 
> > generated by it, rather than by my brain. 
> > 
> > Now ISTM that the UD will have an infinite number of possible programmes 
> to 
> > run, so even if it runs forever, how does it get on to the second step 
> in 
> > any of them? 
>
> Every program can be mapped to a natural number (intuitively, imagine 
> the binary encoding of a program in any Turing-complete language). 
> With something akin to the binary encoding (more abstractly, you can 
> do this to the state table of a Universal Turing Machine), program 
> size increases with their numbers. 
>
> Then the dovetailer proceeds like so: 
>
> - execute step 1 of program 1 
> - execute step 2 of program 1 
> - execute step 1 of program 2 
> - execute step 3 of program 1 
> - execute step 2 of program 2 
> - execute step 1 of program 3 
> ... 
>
> So it will only take finite time for all the computable programs of up 
> to a certain size to finish. 
>
> Telmo. 
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Alberto,

   you wrote: "There must not be a general arrow of time since time in
general relativity is local not only in his value but also its direction
AFAIK"

   Exactly! Time can be shown to be local for QM systems as well. So, where
does the illusion of a global dimensional time come from? Barbour is right.
It doesn't exist. But the illusion persists...

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
wrote:

> Hi Stephen:
>
> There must not be a general arrow of time since time in general relativity
> is local not only in his value but also its direction AFAIK
>
> 2014-11-09 2:25 GMT+01:00 Stephen Paul King :
>
>> Hi Alberto,
>>
>>Is there really a global thermodynamic arrow of time? We can only
>> infer its existence based on theoretical organizations of data that we
>> collect. AFAIK, all "arrows" in actual physical dynamics are local.
>>
>> On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:26:40 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> if time is the thermodynamic arrow then then is meaningless the notion
>>> of reversal of termodinamic arrow.
>>>
>>> In which time the termodinamic arrow is reversed? Does it mean that the
>>> time goes forward while termodinamic arrow goes backward? that contradict
>>> the first assumption!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-10-15 2:14 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I re-read S. Mitra's paper <http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825v2.pdf>
>>>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
>>>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of
>>>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>>>>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
>>>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
>>>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information
>>>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
>>>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to
>>>> be looked at carefully.
>>>>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the
>>>> ongoing discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time
>>>> consistent as a 1p world?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alberto.
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/s3ApsT8Bmrg/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

  Interesting!

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 3:11 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 9 November 2014 14:25, Stephen Paul King  wrote:
>
>> Hi Alberto,
>>
>>Is there really a global thermodynamic arrow of time? We can only
>> infer its existence based on theoretical organizations of data that we
>> collect. AFAIK, all "arrows" in actual physical dynamics are local.
>>
>> For one thing it would be very hard to know if there was a reversed AOT
> in some region of the universe. Stars with a reversed AOT would absorb
> light, for example (from our perspective) and it would be hard to detect
> their presence *except through gravity...*
>
> Hey, did I just come up with a new theory of dark matter? :-)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/s3ApsT8Bmrg/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Alberto,

   Is there really a global thermodynamic arrow of time? We can only infer 
its existence based on theoretical organizations of data that we collect. 
AFAIK, all "arrows" in actual physical dynamics are local.

On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:26:40 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> if time is the thermodynamic arrow then then is meaningless the notion of 
> reversal of termodinamic arrow. 
>
> In which time the termodinamic arrow is reversed? Does it mean that the 
> time goes forward while termodinamic arrow goes backward? that contradict 
> the first assumption!!!
>
>
>
> 2014-10-15 2:14 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King  >:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>I re-read S. Mitra's paper <http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825v2.pdf> 
>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible 
>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of 
>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite 
>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size 
>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information 
>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure 
>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to 
>> be looked at carefully.
>>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing 
>> discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent 
>> as a 1p world?
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto.
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Zibbsey,

   A new discovery for you. A computer can be a topological shape! A sector
of the structures that are invariant under dilations in Sub-Riemannian
manifolds is identical to the Lambda calculus.
   This can be said to imply that spatial relations can "carry" information
just as well as sequences of binary symbols.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM,  wrote:

> At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity
> structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the
> centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity
> section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a
> job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The
> custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through
> that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability,
> the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific
> civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve
> dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures
> and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension
> causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because
> symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that
> wasn't at the scale above.
>
> You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply
> deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly
> understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain
> emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to
> be
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>I re-read S. Mitra's paper
>> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0902.3825v2.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFnc0z9SwLW-HfdQv80vaf6sf0heg>
>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of
>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information
>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to
>> be looked at carefully.
>>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing
>> discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent
>> as a 1p world?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>>
>>


-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

  I recall reading a few papers that discussed this question. I think that
one can only obtain Hermiticity <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hermitian>
with complex valued amplitudes. Self-adjointness does not obtain very
easily

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then
> that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an
> arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the
> probabilities.
>
>
> I don't recall you having shown that.  Can you repeat it.  Do you show
> that the Hilbert space of QM must be over the complex numbers?  Or does
> your proof allow quaternion or octonion QM?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

[SPK]

I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
> evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.
>
>If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
> implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
> long as the "wipe" occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
> is possible to "retain the memory".
>This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
> software can "run" on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
> be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
> is available to run on. In this way one can "control" the software without
> taking any direct action on it.
>

​[Telmo] ​
Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.


[Bruno]
I am not sure I understand. By Church thesis all software can run on all
hardware or anything, once it is organized so that it is Turing Universal.
Then the distinction between hardware and software is relative above the
substitution level, and absolute below (matter emerging from the FPI sums
on infinities of computations). I think that Stephen might be valid,
though. If we were able to kill ourself mentally and instantaneously, we
might choose the selection, like in a WM duplication but when seeing Moscow
(and the temperature) you kill yourself, so that only the W-guy survives.
But nature has programmed in a way such that we can't easily do that, at
least in the "mundane state of consciousness". Near death or in altered
consciousness state, I don't know. Perhaps. This needs much more research
to figure out.

Hi Bruno.

   You are taking a Platonic view and tracing out all distinctions of
computations (modulo complexity class) and hardware (modulo resource
availability), otherwise I thing we agree.


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:48, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Telmo,
>>
>>You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
>> wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?
>> "
>>
>>That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just
>> a misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how "well constructed
>> the memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all
>> objective traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of
>> the 1p content was still there.
>>
>
> Ok, that is quite intriguing. Have you tried asking your previous
> interlocutors? Could you have dreamt it?
>
> I had some very vivid dreams when I was a kid that feel like real memories
> to me. I only assume they are dreams because of the content (a plush toy
> gaining life, being pushed out of a very tall building and things like
> that). Looking back I suspect we are born into a very psychedelic state,
> but that's another topic.
>
> I'm not trying to grill you. I find this really interesting so would like
> to know the details.
>
>
>>
>>   I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
>> evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.
>>
>>If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
>> implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
>> long as the "wipe" occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
>> is possible to "retain the memory".
>>This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
>> software can "run" on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
>> be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
>> is available to run on. In this way one can "control" the software without
>> taking any direct action on it.
>>
>
> Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand. By Church thesis all software can run on all
> hardware or anything, once it is organized so that it is Turing Universal.
> Then the distinction between hardware and software is relative above the
> substitution level, and absolute below (matter emerging from the FPI sums
> on infinities of computations). I think that Stephen might be valid,
> though. If we were able to kill ourself mentally and instantaneously, we
> might choose the selection, like in a WM duplication but when seeing Moscow
> (and the temperature) you kill yourself, so that only the W-guy survives.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Telmo,
>>
>>You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
>> wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?
>> "
>>
>>That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just
>> a misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how "well constructed
>> the memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all
>> objective traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of
>> the 1p content was still there.
>>
>
> Ok, that is quite intriguing. Have you tried asking your previous
> interlocutors? Could you have dreamt it?
>
> ​It would have to be a persistent dream. I have not been able to locate
one of the two persons. It is as if they vanished... The other person, who
I will not name, is a well known physicist. ​



> I had some very vivid dreams when I was a kid that feel like real memories
> to me. I only assume they are dreams because of the content (a plush toy
> gaining life, being pushed out of a very tall building and things like
> that). Looking back I suspect we are born into a very psychedelic state,
> but that's another topic.
>

​I think that when we are very young, the massive plasticity of the brain
allows for it to have a wide "spread" over its possible worlds. Research
into children that have "past life" experiences may contain data useful to
explain this effect.

>
> I'm not trying to grill you. I find this really interesting so would like
> to know the details.
>

​Yeah, it is amazing stuff, but its very easy to deceive oneself.

>
>
>>
>>   I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
>> evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.
>>
>>If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could
>> implement them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so
>> long as the "wipe" occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it
>> is possible to "retain the memory".
>>This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
>> software can "run" on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
>> be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
>> is available to run on. In this way one can "control" the software without
>> taking any direct action on it.
>>
>
> Interesting, I hope Bruno can comment on this.
>

​Me too!​


>
> So essentially the physical universe would be a type of consensus amongst
> infinite instantiations of a mind?
>

​Yes. Exactly that! I define a "reality" in those terms: That which is
incontrovertible for some collection of mutually communicating observers.
  (Observers are anything whose observations involve the creation of
distinctions that make a difference to at least one other observer.)​



> I guess your experience could be called a "reverse déjà vu" or maybe a
> "jamais vu".
>

​Interesting!​


>
>
>>
>>This hypothesis makes sense to me as I am using a dualist ontology,
>> minds and bodies are not one and the same "thing" or "process" - I reject
>> Descartes' substance dualism - the isomorphism implied by the duality is
>> not between individual minds (logical structures/algebras) and brains
>> (topological spaces/groups), but between something more like quotient
>> <http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5104/quotienting-a-set-by-an-equivalence-relation-such-that-the-natural-projection-is>
>> of adjoint categories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor_category>.
>>
>>I can't find a good mathematical description of the concept yet...
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Telmo,
>>>>
>>>>   One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We
>>>> where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really
>>>> consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had
>>>> to wait for his paper to be published for further information on his 
>>>> theory.
>>>>Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that t

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

   You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly,
wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?"

   That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just a
misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how "well constructed the
memory is. It was as if my memories somehow survived while all objective
traces vanished. All the non-1p traces had vanished but all of the 1p
content was still there.

  I have a suspicion as to how this might happen. I think that it may be
evidence of part of Bruno's argument that we are not single computations.

   If our individual minds span over all of the brains that could implement
them and each brain is tied into a single physical world, then so long as
the "wipe" occurs only in some some of the physical worlds, then it is
possible to "retain the memory".
   This implies a restricted form of computational universality - not all
software can "run" on each and every piece of hardware - and that there may
be a way of selecting what the software does by steering which hardware it
is available to run on. In this way one can "control" the software without
taking any direct action on it.

   This hypothesis makes sense to me as I am using a dualist ontology,
minds and bodies are not one and the same "thing" or "process" - I reject
Descartes' substance dualism - the isomorphism implied by the duality is
not between individual minds (logical structures/algebras) and brains
(topological spaces/groups), but between something more like quotient
<http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5104/quotienting-a-set-by-an-equivalence-relation-such-that-the-natural-projection-is>
of adjoint categories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor_category>.

   I can't find a good mathematical description of the concept yet...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Telmo,
>>
>>   One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We
>> where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really
>> consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had
>> to wait for his paper to be published for further information on his theory.
>>Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events
>> happened are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if
>> they where wiped clean from our reality.
>>
>
> Thanks Stephen.
> If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, wouldn't it require
> that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brent,
>>>>
>>>>I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there
>>>> exists something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain
>>>> otherwise are some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could
>>>> there be an explanation that is completely secular?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a large
>>> number of branches, in the ones where you survived something very unlikely
>>> necessarily happened?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the
>>>> spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have
>>>> a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite
>>>> idea http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I love this idea and I bet on its validity. That being said, how can you
>>> know you had such an experience? Could you elaborate?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in
>>>>> the question of
>>>>> whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is
>>>>> that "God" is
>>>>> implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence"
>>>

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Spudboy,

   Not Boltzmann brains. Vaidman brains
<http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951>!

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:23 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is undervalued by the
> intellects here.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 7:30 pm
> Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God
> anymore?
>
>   On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>
>  > I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at
>> the origin of the physical universe,
>>
>
>  Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
> omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
> full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
> to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.
>
>   > or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical
>> universe
>>
>
>  Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a
> physical universe but you have said on this list that you don't.
>
>   > With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible
>>
>
>  If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby
> Race every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.
>
>John K Clark
>
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

  One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We where
discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really consequential.
It didn't go anywhere as on of the persons said that I had to wait for his
paper to be published for further information on his theory.
   Thing is, now the only evidence that I can find that the events happened
are in my memory. All of the emails and so forth are gone, as if they where
wiped clean from our reality.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brent,
>>
>>I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists
>> something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are
>> some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could there be an
>> explanation that is completely secular?
>>
>
> Could it be explained by MWI + anthropic principle? You died in a large
> number of branches, in the ones where you survived something very unlikely
> necessarily happened?
>
>
>> I am open to such, but its like arguing that something like the
>> spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually happened but one does not have
>> a collection of unimpeachable witnesses available.
>>
>
>>Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!
>>
>
> I love this idea and I bet on its validity. That being said, how can you
> know you had such an experience? Could you elaborate?
>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in
>>> the question of
>>> whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is
>>> that "God" is
>>> implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or
>>> "the unprovable
>>> truths of arithmetic".
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original Message 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-
>>> wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about
>>> religion that I
>>> am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is
>>> Daniel Garber, a
>>> professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in
>>> philosophy and science in
>>> the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a
>>> wrap-up column on
>>> the series."
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny
>>> that the arguments
>>> for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my
>>> impression is that
>>> proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious
>>> discussion outside
>>> of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my
>>> sense is that the
>>> discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion
>>> has gone out of
>>> the question."
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This

Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   I re-read S. Mitra's paper <http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3825v2.pdf> again
and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of
entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
   The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information
expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to
be looked at carefully.
   In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing
discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent
as a 1p world?

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

​Hi John,

   Yo wrote: "God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
full of doorknobs."​ Indeed, your existence is proof of this claim!

   Try harder not to project the consequences of being finite and human
onto something that you will never understand. Too be sure, I find that
those that religionists that push their personal beliefs onto others are
reprehensible, but it is the "pushing" and attempts to control the minds of
others that is evil, not the belief in what can not be "rationally"
explained.

   There is no replacement for 1p definiteness.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at
>> the origin of the physical universe,
>>
>
> Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
> omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
> full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
> to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.
>
> > or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe
>>
>
> Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical
> universe but you have said on this list that you don't.
>
> > With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible
>>
>
> If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race
> every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

   I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists 
something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are 
some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could there be an 
explanation that is completely secular? I am open to such, but its like 
arguing that something like the spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually 
happened but one does not have a collection of unimpeachable witnesses 
available.
   
   Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea 
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!

On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the 
> question of 
> whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is 
> that "God" is 
> implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or 
> "the unprovable 
> truths of arithmetic". 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>  Original Message  
>
>
>
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
>  
>
>
> Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about 
> religion that I 
> am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is 
> Daniel Garber, a 
> professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in 
> philosophy and science in 
> the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a 
> wrap-up column on 
> the series." 
>
> ... 
>
> Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny 
> that the arguments 
> for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my 
> impression is that 
> proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious 
> discussion outside 
> of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my 
> sense is that the 
> discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion 
> has gone out of 
> the question." 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

The process does seem, if we think of it this way, to be intelligent, yes.
But this is a definition of intelligence that most would not consider: An
intelligence is the collection of behaviors of a system that tend to
increase the number of possible future states.
   My wording doesn't quite look right...

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious?
>
>
>
> On 20 September 2014 03:01, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>>I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibiting or
>> activation of gene" aspect is the "running of the particular algorithm"
>> while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on the
>> space of algorithms.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01 Sep 2014, at 17:57, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brent,
>>>
>>>Have you seen any studies of the "Ameoba dubia
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium>" that look into what
>>> their genome is expressing?
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/  seems to suggest
>>> to me the possibility that the genome is acting as a "brain"!
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. But in my opinion, you don't need dynamical change in the
>>> genome (deletion or addition of genes). The "usual" regulation (inhibiting
>>> or activation of gene) is enough.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the
>>>>>> baby
>>>>>> needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
>>>>>> consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature -
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> other people (i.e. assimilate culture).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
>>>>> in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
>>>>> and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
>>>>> is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
>>>>> large genome directly encoding our knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
>>>>> enough to be learnable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
>>>> live in a very irregular environment.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>>> topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>
>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>
>>> Senior Researcher
>>>
>>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>>
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>>
>>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>>
>>>
>>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
>>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>> hereby noti

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,

   I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibiting or
activation of gene" aspect is the "running of the particular algorithm"
while the mutation and selection aspect might be seen as a process on the
space of algorithms.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 01 Sep 2014, at 17:57, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi Brent,
>
>Have you seen any studies of the "Ameoba dubia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium>" that look into what
> their genome is expressing?
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/  seems to suggest to
> me the possibility that the genome is acting as a "brain"!
>
>
> Interesting. But in my opinion, you don't need dynamical change in the
> genome (deletion or addition of genes). The "usual" regulation (inhibiting
> or activation of gene) is enough.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>> As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the
>>>> baby
>>>> needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
>>>> consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
>>>> is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and
>>>> with
>>>> other people (i.e. assimilate culture).
>>>>
>>>>  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
>>> in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
>>> and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
>>> is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
>>> large genome directly encoding our knowledge.
>>>
>>> Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
>>> enough to be learnable.
>>>
>>
>> So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
>> live in a very irregular environment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 mor

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe

[Stephen Paul King]

Or maybe Hawking is "messing with us". He is well known for his pranks


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > I don't think you can get energies like 10^11Gev even in supernova.
>
>
> I don't know about a supernova but we know for a fact that you can get
> energies like that somewhere. The record energy for a cosmic ray particle
> (probably a proton) was detected in 1991 with a energy of 3*10^11 Gev,
> that's 40 million times as much energy as what he LHC in Switzerland can
> produce. We can only speculate on how it was made but we do have some idea
> where and when. According to something called the CZK limit cosmic rays
> with energy greater than 5*10^10 Gev can't be coming from a place further
> away than 160 million light years because if they were then interactions
> with the cosmic microwave background radiation would slow them down and rob
> them of energy.  Cosmically speaking 160 million light years is pretty
> close and 160 million years is pretty recent.
>
> > The only place I can think of that might produce that kind of energy is
>> approaching the singularity of a black hole.
>
>
> Or maybe the decay product of some very exotic particle unknown to
> science  was made in the first nanosecond after the Big Bang and has only
> decayed recently into a super fast ultra energetic proton. Or maybe it came
> from something even stranger.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

   Yes, but then we have to deal with the very real possibility that we
exist within a Black hole! How do we align the Baryon decay with "we live
in a black hole"? The latter is much most plausible, IMHO.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:51 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  If the Higgs field decays the effect would be to make the quarks
> massless and protons and neutrons would disintegrate.  But inside a black
> hole it would have no effect on the rest of the universe.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 9/8/2014 11:45 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
> infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
> formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
> allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
> able to observe the results, even in principle.
>
>
> On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
>> explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
>> black holes?
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>>>
>>>  What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
>>> that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
>>> potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
>>> expanding out at the speed of light?
>>>
>>> Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
>>> of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
>>> <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e>
>>>  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
>>> Stephen
>>> Hawking <http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/> claims the Higgs
>>> Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe. He
>>> claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
>>> and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we "wouldn't see it
>>> coming."
>>>
>>> The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
>>> its mass. "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
>>> become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV)," Hawking
>>> writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
>>> the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
>>> the speed of light.
>>>
>>> The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
>>> According to Hawking, "A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
>>> be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
>>> climate." The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
>>> believe it is possible
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read more:
>>> http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK
>>>
>>--
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N64

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe

[Stephen Paul King]

Could it be that he is playing a joke on us? "...is unlikely to be funded..."
Really!? What could be used to pay for such? Not enough mass in the Solar
system by my count.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

> For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
> infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
> formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
> allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
> able to observe the results, even in principle.
>
>
> On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
>> explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
>> black holes?
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>>>
>>> What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
>>> that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
>>> potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
>>> expanding out at the speed of light?
>>>
>>> Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
>>> of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
>>> <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e>
>>>  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
>>> Stephen
>>> Hawking <http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/> claims the Higgs
>>> Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe. He
>>> claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
>>> and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we "wouldn't see it
>>> coming."
>>>
>>> The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
>>> its mass. "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
>>> become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV)," Hawking
>>> writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
>>> the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
>>> the speed of light.
>>>
>>> The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
>>> According to Hawking, "A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
>>> be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
>>> climate." The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
>>> believe it is possible
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-
>>> Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-
>>> Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe

[Stephen Paul King]

Right, but that would make Hawking's claim even more ridiculous! An
exception to it would not be ever seen

   Has he lost it? I do think so... Its a sad day. :_(


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

> For the second question, as Brent pointed out physical quantities go to
> infinity (or more realistically to the Planck scale) in black hole
> formation. In other words they probably go as high as the universe will
> allow - but since they're (normally?) inside an event horizon, we won't be
> able to observe the results, even in principle.
>
>
> On 9 September 2014 17:46, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you
>> explain it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of
>> black holes?
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>>>
>>> What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim
>>> that the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and
>>> potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum
>>> expanding out at the speed of light?
>>>
>>> Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture
>>> of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times
>>> <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/god-particle-could-destroy-the-universe-says-stephen-hawking/story-fnb64oi6-1227050481513?nk=2d907a0ab52572e7c9439c4e797e761e>
>>>  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
>>> Stephen
>>> Hawking <http://www.upi.com/topic/Stephen_Hawking/> claims the Higgs
>>> Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe. He
>>> claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space
>>> and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we "wouldn't see it
>>> coming."
>>>
>>> The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter
>>> its mass. "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might
>>> become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV)," Hawking
>>> writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible
>>> the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at
>>> the speed of light.
>>>
>>> The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low.
>>> According to Hawking, "A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would
>>> be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic
>>> climate." The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still
>>> believe it is possible
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-
>>> Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-
>>> Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/N640uTPeGn8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you 

Re: Higgs Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   Has any one figured out how Hawking for that number and will you explain 
it to us? Do energies of that scale even occur in the formation of black 
holes?
  

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:17:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> What do the physicists on this list think about Hawkins recent claim that 
> the Higgs Boson can become metastable at energies above  10^11 GeV and 
> potentially cause the end of the universe by creating an unstoppable vacuum 
> expanding out at the speed of light? 
>
> Is there something – theoretically possible -- to this latest conjecture 
> of his, or has Stephen been watching too many Dr. Who reruns?
>
>  
>
> Sept. 7 (UPI) -- As first discovered by the Sunday Times 
> 
>  of the United Kingdom, in the preface of an upcoming book, *Starmus*, 
> Stephen 
> Hawking  claims the Higgs 
> Boson particle, a.k.a. the "God particle," could end the universe. He 
> claims if enough energy is directed at the particle, it could cause space 
> and time to completely collapse. He also claims that we "wouldn't see it 
> coming."
>
> The Higgs Boson particle is said to be the particle that gives matter its 
> mass. "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become 
> metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV)," Hawking 
> writes. He claims that under such conditions, it is theoretically possible 
> the particle would cause an unstoppable vacuum to form that would expand at 
> the speed of light.
>
> The likelihood of such an event occurring is apparently very low. 
> According to Hawking, "A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would 
> be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic 
> climate." The end of days scenario is then very theoretical, but he still 
> believe it is possible
>
>
>
> Read more: 
> http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/09/07/Higgs-Boson-particle-could-destroy-universe-according-to-Stephen-Hawking/9651410124628/#ixzz3CgptXOvK
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Fish can communicate and UNDERSTAND each other!

[Stephen Paul King]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/08/when-your-preys-in-a-hole-and-you-dont-have-a-pole-use-a-moray/

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

   Does it seem to you that there are two aspects to communication:

1) the physical aspects of the signaling: physically detectable
2) the computational interpretation of the signals: logically inferable?

   We have no idea if plants have interpretation of the chemical signals in
addition to the mere presence and/or absence of such, but presence/absence
is sufficient, IMHO, to satisfy 2).


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 06, 2014 1:27 PM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Chris: and why on Earth would you exclude the communication of plants etc.
> from the broad meaning of "language"? (They don't have a blabbermouth).
>
> JM
>
>
>
> I personally don’t, but probably most people would not think of this
> system of communication as being a form of language…. Or at least that is
> what I thought; maybe I am not giving most people enough credit.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> >>We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication
> once languages emerge...
>
>
>
> Want to point out that important communication occurs in nature without
> what we would commonly term language being used. For example, it appears
> there exists a widespread intra & trans-species chemical based signaling
> system operating amongst plants species (at least amongst those studied),
> where they are communicating the presence of pathogens and predator species
> to other nearby plants, in a fairly specific manner that seems to be
> “understood” by other plants who respond to these specific chemical signals
> in a timely and appropriate manner.
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: my "artificial scientist"

[Stephen Paul King]

Very Nice Telmo! 

   We need to talk! I am working with Marius Muliga and Lou Kauffman and 
others on a form of 'software computer" that might run on top of your 
networks! See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4333

On Friday, September 5, 2014 8:20:20 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since people have been talking about AI, creativity etc., I take the 
> liberty of doing a bit of self-promotion.
>
> My paper "Symbolic regression of generative network models" has finally 
> been published and it's open access. Here's a blog post about it:
>
>
> http://www.telmomenezes.com/2014/09/using-evolutionary-computation-to-explain-network-growth/
>
> and the direct link:
>
> http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140905/srep06284/full/srep06284.html
>
> The idea of this work is to use genetic programming to evolve plausible 
> bottom-up network generators. In a sense, the system automatically looks 
> for and validates theories on how a given network was formed.
>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,


   Ah, so making sure that the AI have feed-back loops built in so that
there are consequences (short and long terms) for "dumb" behavior might be
a good idea. One way of doing this is ensuring that they can not be
self-immortal and must reproduce to recover a form of immortality of their
"genome" - ummm, what would be the correct term here? - There is no better
reward than continued survival

  I have read everything by Herbert that I could find. Yes, Destination
Void is a must. Heinlein 's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress> is good as well
as it shows what we would like in an AGI system.



On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR  wrote:

> I don't know how you could do this in practice, but nature has proved that
> intelligent beings can have their behaviour towards other beings
> constrained in various ways. An obvious example is that we care for our
> children. If one could built (or otherwise cause to come into being) an AI
> with a reward mechanism, and specify that "caring about human beings" would
> be one of the ways to trigger it, one *might* be able to make a
> benevolent God...
>
> (Of course Asimov's 3 Laws say exactly this, though in more "robotic"
> terms. And one might read Frank Herbert's "Destination Void" carefully
> before embarking on this project...)
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

There is also the case of many AGI competing,. cooperating and colluding
with each other...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

> I think it would be a purely academic exercise (as in, disconnected from
> any practical consequences) to argue about the kinds of AGIs that could
> have access to infinite resources.
>
> Rejecting Yudkowsky's argument on the basis that reality *might* be
> infinite seems like an odd move to me. If you feel, as Yudkowsky does, that
> the fate of humanity rests on our ability to produce a friendly AI before
> someone else produces an unfriendly one, then such esoteric objections miss
> the point entirely. Even if resources were infinite, it doesn't follow that
> we'd be safe from a paperclip maximizer, and anyway, we have no good reason
> to suppose resources are infinite in any way that bears on the potential
> realities of AGI.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Terren,
>>
>>   Ah, nice link. Thank you. Does the assumption of a finite and fixed set
>> of resources necessarily match the real world?
>>
>>If an AGI's computation can occur on any active and evolving
>> network of sufficient complexity, would the paperclip argument hold?
>>
>> ISTM that overall resources are finite, bounded and fixed only within
>> snapshots of patches of the universe. Given eternal inflation and the
>> potential for endless forms of resources, I find the paperclip argument
>> unconvincing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same
>>>> resources, no conflict need arise...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes >>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
>>>>>>> know this from biology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
>>>>>> than one celled zygotes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
>>>>>>> AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't understand the people who talk about a "friendly A" I
>>>>>> when what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and
>>>>>> place our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not 
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> to consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than 
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   John K Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
>>>>> conflict with ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason,
>>>>> you'd have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our
>>>>> interests. Even if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI
>>>>> would be friendly (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than
>>>>> us would behave in unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem 
>>>>> contrary
>>>>> to our interests, simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the
>>>>> reasoning (which might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).
>>>>>
>>>>> Terren
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>>>> Google Groups "Everything List

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

One other remark.

>From the previously linked article:

"This may seem more like super-stupidity than super-intelligence. For
humans, it would indeed be stupidity, as it would constitute failure to
fulfill many of our important terminal values, such as life, love, and
variety. The AGI won't revise or otherwise change its goals, since changing
its goals would result in fewer paperclips being made in the future, and
that opposes its current goal. It has one simple goal of maximizing the
number of paperclips; human life, learning, joy, and so on are not
specified as goals. An AGI is simply an optimization process—a goal-seeker,
a utility-function-maximizer. Its values can be completely alien to ours.
If its utility function is to maximize paperclips, then it will do exactly
that."

   Not being capable of altering goals is indeed dumb!


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

> http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources,
>> no conflict need arise...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
>>>>> know this from biology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
>>>> than one celled zygotes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
>>>>> AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also don't understand the people who talk about a "friendly A" I when
>>>> what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
>>>> our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
>>>> consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>>   John K Clark
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
>>> conflict with ours.
>>>
>>> It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
>>> have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
>>> if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
>>> (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
>>> unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
>>> simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
>>> might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
&

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Terren,

  Ah, nice link. Thank you. Does the assumption of a finite and fixed set
of resources necessarily match the real world?

   If an AGI's computation can occur on any active and evolving
network of sufficient complexity, would the paperclip argument hold?

ISTM that overall resources are finite, bounded and fixed only within
snapshots of patches of the universe. Given eternal inflation and the
potential for endless forms of resources, I find the paperclip argument
unconvincing.



On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

> http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources,
>> no conflict need arise...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we
>>>>> know this from biology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter
>>>> than one celled zygotes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level
>>>>> AI (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also don't understand the people who talk about a "friendly A" I when
>>>> what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
>>>> our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
>>>> consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>>   John K Clark
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
>>> conflict with ours.
>>>
>>> It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
>>> have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
>>> if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
>>> (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
>>> unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
>>> simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
>>> might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).
>>>
>>> Terren
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
>> immediately.”
>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

AFAIK, if the AGI and humanity are not competing for the same resources, no
conflict need arise...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped -- we know
>>> this from biology.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, adults tend to be smarter than infants and infants are smarter than
>> one celled zygotes.
>>
>>
>>> > What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
>>> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>>>
>>
>> I also don't understand the people who talk about a "friendly A" I when
>> what they really mean is a AI that will happily remain our slave and place
>> our interests at a higher level than its own. It's just not possible to
>> consistently outsmart something that is vastly more intelligent than you
>> are.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
> You're presupposing that an AGI must necessarily have interests that
> conflict with ours.
>
> It's obviously a really difficult problem, if for no other reason, you'd
> have to have faith that a much smarter AI was acting in our interests. Even
> if you could mathematically prove beforehand that an AGI would be friendly
> (which I doubt is possible), something way smarter than us would behave in
> unpredictable ways and make decisions that seem contrary to our interests,
> simply because we wouldn't be smart enough to follow the reasoning (which
> might take hundreds of years to explain to mere humans).
>
> Terren
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

   Exactly, we are the 'same sort of thing'. :-) It seems that only scifi
writers actively explore this idea
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_Lifemaker>. The academics are
stuck in the mode of thinking that somehow 'intelligence' can only arise if
intentionally created by other 'intelligence'. It reminds me of the debates
in the 19th century about the origin of life.


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:10 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 16:42, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of
>> teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that?
>>
>>
> I have no idea what "we" want, I was just presenting a thought experiment.
> My basic view is that there is not necessarily any difference between a
> suitably trained/brought up AI and a person - why would there be? Logically
> we're the same sort of thing.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Nah, I get what you mean. Connecting an AGI to a body is one way of
teaching it to recognize us, but do we really want to do that?


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 16:08, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> We are freaking AGI ourselves, operating machines made with
>> biomolecules...
>>
>
> Sorry, I thought it was obvious that's what I was saying, too, when I
> pointed out that an AGI could be connected to androids. Obviously that
> works both ways. Apologies for not making that clearer, I thought it was
> too obvious to mention.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

We learn of each other by interacting this becomes communication once
languages emerge...


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:16 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 15:18, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams,
>> but it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete
>> those data streams in a way that is compatible with ours?
>>
>
> Well, how do we come to? (Or do we?)
>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

I agree, but I strongly suspect that one does not "program" an AGI, we
would "grow" it and "teach" it


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:15 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 15:13, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the
>> sensor data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the
>> property of "people" come from.
>>
>
> I'm not assuming it just happens. I'm assuming it's a useful way for any
> perceiver to divide up the world, especially if it has to interact with
> that world. Given that what really exists are quantum fields, or whatever,
> our internal model of the world is presumably the most useful one evolution
> could come up with. It seems likely AIs would have to either develop or be
> pre-programmed with something simliar in order to interact with the world.
>
>
>>Consider the case were the Google "thing" discovered cats from
>> processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
>> cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
>> other transformations) in many different "videos".
>>
>
> I am assuming an AI is more intelligent that this, certainly.
>
>>
>>I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything "sees the
>> same world" as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
>> studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
>> common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
>> absolutely do not "see the same world" as we do! It is a very hard problem
>> figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
>> consistent with how we do.
>>
>
> If we have to work it out, then we may not be creating an AI. I think
> Clarke had the right idea when he said that HAL had to be taught about the
> world. I suspect that children don't come with a huge amount of built in
> knowledge either.
>
>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Cool! Terren, you grok what I'm trying to say. Thank you!!! We are freaking
AGI ourselves, operating machines made with biomolecules...

   The big realization that I have had is that we have no means to
determine that the content of experience of any other AGI matches ours. All
that we can figure is that we can somethings communicate effectively and
get along for a while. :-)


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Terren Suydam 
wrote:

> That's all we do... process "sensor data" and make complicated inferences
> about those features of our experience we refer to as people (and
> everything else). Of course, we undergo a great deal of training to get
> there, and much of the training is done by people. To Liz's point,
> purposefully designed AI might well also be trained by people, or at least,
> people would comprise a significant part of its training. At the end of the
> day, we are just AGIs with a biological substrate, with some stuff
> hardwired in by evolution, and a cultural program that inculcates in us
> some very specific and often strange ideas about identity, reality at
> large, and what our goals ought to be.
>
> To your point (and mine, earlier), AGIs are likely to construct a
> worldview that is significantly different from ours, for lots of reasons,
> but surely that doesn't mean it will be unaware of people. It may model
> them (and everything else) differently than we do, but I see no reason to
> believe for instance that we couldn't carry on a conversation with an AI of
> sufficient cognitive ability (and the motivation to do so).
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the
>> sensor data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the
>> property of "people" come from.
>>Consider the case were the Google "thing" discovered cats from
>> processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
>> cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
>> other transformations) in many different "videos".
>>
>>I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything "sees the
>> same world" as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
>> studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
>> common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
>> absolutely do not "see the same world" as we do! It is a very hard problem
>> figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
>> consistent with how we do.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi LizR,
>>>>
>>>>I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
>>>> aware that we exist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated
>>> by people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
>>> input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
>>> that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
>>> spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
>>> exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?
>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, pr

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Sure, that would set up synchronization of sensory data input streams, but
it does not address my question: How does the AGI come so interprete those
data streams in a way that is compatible with ours?

   If we build the robot body with EMF exitation sensors that operate in
the same range as ours and with sensors for atmospheric pressure wave
sequences as our ears, etc. Then maybe it might "experience" a world like
ours, but how can we be sure?

   This is the same question as: How can I be sure that your experience of
Blue is the exact same as mine? I have tried to build a bisimulation
argument that might show this but it has not worked very well at all. It is
frustrating


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:54 PM, LizR  wrote:

> By the way, one possible scenario would be that the AI is provided with a
> body - we could imagine that it's attached via radio, say, to an android
> that is apparently human. To make this scenario deliberately extreme, for
> the sake of argument, if the AI only interacts with the world via this
> android, it might not (at least in a Philip K Dick short story) even
> realise it isn't just another human, like the ones it interacts with every
> day. In this particular scenario, it seems very unlikely it wouldn't be
> aware that other people existed.
>
> (Excuse me, I have to go AFK for a bit. I need to recharge my batteries...)
>
>
>
> On 5 September 2014 13:08, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi LizR,
>>>
>>>I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
>>> aware that we exist?
>>>
>>
>> Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by
>> people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
>> input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
>> that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
>> spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
>> exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?
>>
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

But you seem to assume that it has awareness of "people" beyond the sensor
data + computations that it can access and generate. Where did the property
of "people" come from.
   Consider the case were the Google "thing" discovered cats from
processing YouTube data. Why do we think that it's interpretation of what a
cat is is anything other than a patterns that re-occurs (modulo affine and
other transformations) in many different "videos".

   I am trying to get you to see that we assume that everything "sees the
same world" as oneself, and this could very well not be true! I have been
studying machine learning and anything AGI related in the literature. It is
common knowledge among the experts in that field that the machines
absolutely do not "see the same world" as we do! It is a very hard problem
figuring out how to get the machines to interpret the data patterns in ways
consistent with how we do.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 12:58, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
>> aware that we exist?
>>
>
> Surely that depends on circumstances? If an AI is created and educated by
> people then it will at least be aware that there is something feeding it
> input, and it will probably make the same deductions about that something
> that we make about other people. If it occurs through some sort of
> spontaneous generation, if that's possible, it may not be aware that we
> exist. Did you have a particular scenario in mind?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

How big is the universe that a bacteria or insect interacts with? If the
"objective universe" does not need to exist outside of what can be
measured, why bother having to sim it?


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:59 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> The entire universe as a sim? Could even an AI handle it?
>
>
> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Sep 4, 2014 05:16 AM
> Subject: Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR < 
> lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes < 
> te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>
>   What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>
>
>  You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that.
>
>
>  So it's not like playing the Sims? :)
>
>
>--
> 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>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>
> https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>
> https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

   I will repeat my question: What makes us think that the AGI will be
aware that we exist?


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:21 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 5 September 2014 00:38, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)...
>>
>> Depending on how clever the AI is. Proteus IV and Colossus found ways to
> stop people pulling the plug (unlike HAL).
>
> And of course you only have limited control with children, who will also
> find a way around restrictions if they have enough incentive.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   OTOH, one can control the available resources of the AI (children)...


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 4 September 2014 22:09, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>>> What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
>>> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>>>
>>
>> You can't, of course. Every parent discovers that.
>>
>
> So it's not like playing the Sims? :)
>
>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

   "What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
(many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it."
exactly! A mind can only function in effective isolation. Control disallows
this as control involves coupling to the "mechanisms" of mind.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>  >a human baby is a plastic template for the individual to emerge in
>>>
>>
>> And those 1000 lines of Lisp are a plastic template for the Jupiter Brain
>> to emerge in.
>>
>>
>>
> Precisely. Intelligence is clearly a process that can be bootstrapped --
> we know this from biology.
>
> From our AI adventures so far, it is possible to gather that this
> bootstrapping can be done affording more or less degrees of freedom.
> Computer chess players are bootstrapped with little freedom, they can only
> play chess using a pre-defined algorithm. Genetic programming affords more
> freedom -- it can generate its own programs. And so on.
>
> What I don't understand is how people expect to have a human-level AI
> (many degrees of freedom) and then also be able to micro-manage it.
>
> Telmo.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   I am looking for any papers on the effects of allowing neural networks
to couple to each other


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 17:02, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing
>> to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise
>>
>> (In "Childhood's End" the *Overlords *were the race who helped other
> races to join the Overmind; they were unable to do so themselves, for some
> reason.) But leaving that aside, I'm not sure your question makes sense
> when you're dealing with a transcendental state of existence. How do you
> work out the "costs" when you're talking about of synergy, where the sum of
> the parts is exceeded by the totality, perhaps exceeded by an astronomical
> factor? It seems like asking if there is a "cost" that would stop single
> celled animals "wanting" to form multicellular ones. Almost certainly there
> is - they give up their autonomy, become specialised, and may be sacrificed
> for the good of the organism ... etc. But that doesn't mean we don't, or
> shouldn't, exist, or that we should want to be a trillion bacteria.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Are the resources available to the OverLords that would allow the sharing
to be "cost-free" then it would make no difference, otherwise


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:37 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 14:31, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their
>> largess with us?
>>
>> Why wouldn't they?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

But something is amiss! Why would the OverLords wish to share their largess
with us?


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
>> "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
>> solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
>> a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least).
>>
>> If you mean the Overlords in "Childhood's End" they were (fairly)
> benevolent, they ended all wars and brought about a near-utopia. Of course
> it didn't last, because the ultimate aim of the Overmind was to have the
> human race join it.
>
> If you mean the Overmind, when you're absorbed you become part of its
> resources (and get proportionally represented in its decision making, etc).
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

​Right! Damping down random fluctuations in one's computer is an
optimization move.

   Oh!, your thinking in more "Borg" terms, re: absorption​


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 14:06, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
>> "free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
>> solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
>> a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least).
>>
>> If you mean the Overlords in "Childhood's End" they were (fairly)
> benevolent, they ended all wars and brought about a near-utopia. Of course
> it didn't last, because the ultimate aim of the Overmind was to have the
> human race join it.
>
> If you mean the Overmind, when you're absorbed you become part of its
> resources (and get proportionally represented in its decision making, etc).
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

OTOH, becoming capable of exploiting computational resources that are
"free" (note the scare quotes) is always optimal. If one can obtain
solutions to problem without having to use up one's own resources is always
a "good thing" (for the Overlords at least).


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Zerg <http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind>! ?
>>
>> Well, quite. I believe the name comes from "Childhood's End" although
> obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke)
> decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker"
> (iirc) was to merge into a single mind, and even that only managed to get a
> distorted glimpse of the true nature of reality.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Childhood's End in on my top 20 best scifi books ever list... Umm, I
disagree with "the ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker" (iirc) was to merge
into a single mind" only to the extent that it is actually impossible
(there is a proven theorem to this effect) for this to happen. It always
goes the opposite direction: minds tend to diverge and become diverse and
not merge to an infinite limit.

   Merging actually destroys information. Witness the Black Hole.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 13:48, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Zerg <http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind>! ?
>>
>> Well, quite. I believe the name comes from "Childhood's End" although
> obviously Olaf Stapledon was writing about it (and influencing Clarke)
> decades earlier than the 1950s. The ultimate aim of life in "Star Maker"
> (iirc) was to merge into a single mind, and even that only managed to get a
> distorted glimpse of the true nature of reality.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Zerg <http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Overmind>! ?


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation".
>>
>> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Umm, explain: "Absorbed". I'm not groking it...


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:46 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 13:45, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation".
>>
>> Only if you aren't absorbed. Otherwise you'd only be exploiting yourself.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Humans interacting with each other form very nice (in terms of
expressiveness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_power>) adaptive
networks.


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Umm, not really. It is "exploitation".
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>>"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the
>>> Earthlings? "
>>>
>>>Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
>>> Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
>>> running algorithms that "evolve" are very good at finding solutions to
>>> optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
>>> of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the "work".
>>>
>>> This is what being absorbed into the Overmind *means*.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Umm, not really. It is "exploitation".


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 4 September 2014 13:38, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>"why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings?
>> "
>>
>>Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
>> Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
>> running algorithms that "evolve" are very good at finding solutions to
>> optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
>> of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the "work".
>>
>> This is what being absorbed into the Overmind *means*.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi John,

   "why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings? "

   Did you mean, Why would the Zookeepers want intelligence from
Earthlings? Why to compute things for them, of course! Distributed networks
running algorithms that "evolve" are very good at finding solutions to
optimization problems. It is even better (for the Zookeepers) for the cost
of those computations to be absorbed by the population doing the "work".



On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:51 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Stephen, we have not communicated for quite awhile. Why would you think we
> know more than - *what?* - *nothing* indeed and assume circumstances
> according to our whim (mindset?).
> ()
> We still use our present terms in postulating a far bigger world as our
> creator, one we can 'imagine' to be applicable (understandable?) FOR US,
> just as we use human terms to simulate(!) animals' thinking/talking.
> We are in the midst of the typically human way: if we don't know
> something, we IMAGINE something/somebody? else who solves our problems
> right into our potentials and keeps us happy. (Religions?)
>
> Now why would have want the Zookeepers intelligence from the Earthlings?
> Maybe to a level only *they(?*) should be able to COMMUNICATE with us?
> We may supply some mental products THEY EAT, or some 'energy' for them, a
> kind of unknown to us? Or entertainment? or nourishment of some  kind? Or a
> 'mental nightpot'? as long as we supply, we last. Then we are out.
> (A similarly unfounded fantasy - just as the so called 'scientific' ones).
> John M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> What if the aliens are AI?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
>>> aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
>>> not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
>> immediately.”
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

   Could you send me your thoughts about dependency injection to my gmail
address so that we can continue? kingstephenp...@gmail.com


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
>Could we discuss this further outside of the group?
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM
>>
>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>
>>I agree. What we see in the current development is, literally,
>> evolution - I would not say that it is "Darwinian" per se as it is not
>> smooth or continuous. It looks more like a punctuated equilibrium over many
>> interacting asynchronous systems. What I don't see is an analogue of a
>> genome, such that the Dawkins model is supported.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just recently found talks on "dependency injection". Please tell me
>> more!
>>
>>
>>
>> Also known as inversion of control. Essentially it involves the
>> implementation of interfaces. The interface being the contract. How the
>> service implementing the contract goes about doing so is an internal
>> matter, what matters to the client is that the contract is honored and the
>> given service is performed. Complex systems are assemblages of simpler
>> systems… file systems, data repositories, messaging systems, and so on.
>> These systems can be composited together using interfaces and abstract
>> containers – instead of returning a concrete container of something the
>> thing can return something (could be anything) that fulfills a shared
>> contract.
>>
>> Late binding dependency injection is a means of supplying at the late
>> deployed run time phase of a configured set of libraries… perhaps behind
>> other endpoints and so forth that will implement the required interface and
>> provide the needed service. The consuming program need not worry about how
>> a given dependency will be fulfilled – that is the injected libraries
>> responsibility.
>>
>> Using a combination of programming behind the abstraction of interfaces
>> and IOC containers – frameworks that perform late binding dependency
>> injection to fulfill the service needs a program can free itself from any
>> particular implementation and smoothly evolve to other better
>> implementations as long as its contracts i.e. defined implemented
>> interfaces can be fulfilled.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 2:53 PM
>>
>>
>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>
>>A colleague of mine has found a few possible examples of
>> "self-assembling code" but they are not strings of bits, they are better
>> described as a form of topological object. They are based on a different
>> model of computation:
>>
>> http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/quines-in-chemlambda/
>>
>>
>>
>> software systems increasingly are becoming comprised of services (making
>> use of other services (that call into other services (etc.))) In the
>> ecosystem of cloud facing services those that are performant etc. will tend
>> to rise and become incorporated – often, increasingly in a late binding
>> manner, through a process called dependency injection – into other
>> assemblies of multiple different services and internal logic that
>> increasingly are themselves becoming exposed as yet other services.
>>
>> Meta systems, comprised of loosely coupled archipelagos of distinct areas
>> of responsibility and roles linked together in the cloud through dynamic
>> queues are taking off. Large systems such as say Netflix heavily rely on
>> this architecture.
>>
>> IMO – this is an architecture in which a form of digital Darwinian
>> evolution can more easily occur – as compared with traditio

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Modulo decryption


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 15:45, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>   Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
>> Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
>> same number as 00100110001
>>
>> Is it a real word? (Personally I'd go for "correctly ordered" or "in the
> right order" rather than "sequentiable properly".)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

   Yes, I am saying that  there may be AIs around already unaware of our
existence and vice versa! Cultures, languages, religions, etc. all have the
behaviors that we would associate with entities that are to some degree
"self-aware" in that there are "self-replication" behaviors associated -
See Dawkin's The extended Phenotype
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Phenotype> - Humans are quite
capable of becoming members of a sufficiently expressive language as
silicon hardware...


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:57 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick
>> here. Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There
>> is a form of computation that would look like noise if one where only
>> looking at some subset of the network that is running a distributed
>> computation. If that distributed computation is an AGI, we would never know
>> it is there and neither would it know we are here.
>>
>> I suspect it would look like noise as far as I am concerned anyway. I'm
> not sure if this gets us any closer to an AGI, however. Presumably you
> still need to set it up correctly to start with (or something doeseg a
> long period of learning). Or are you saying that there may be AIs around
> already unaware of our existence and vice versa?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

  Sequentiable means that the correct sequence of operations occurs.
Information is sensitive to orderings after all. 101001010010 is not the
same number as 00100110001


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>   But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From
>> what I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
>> dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need
>> particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
>> and to be sequentiable properly.
>>
>> That may well be true. But of course the hardware has to be connected up
> correctly, there has to be enough storage connected, and it has to have the
> right software. The last is the trickiest part, I imagine (unless "Dial F
> for Frankenstein" is correct and you merely have to connect enough stuff
> together...)
>
> PS I'm not sure what sequentiable means, by the way. Wiktionary isn't
> being any help.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Right, the connections have to be correct, but there is a weird trick here.
Recall how an encrypted message can appear to be random noise? There is a
form of computation that would look like noise if one where only looking at
some subset of the network that is running a distributed computation. If
that distributed computation is an AGI, we would never know it is there and
neither would it know we are here.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 15:09, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>   But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From
>> what I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
>> dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need
>> particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
>> and to be sequentiable properly.
>>
>> That may well be true. But of course the hardware has to be connected up
> correctly, there has to be enough storage connected, and it has to have the
> right software. The last is the trickiest part, I imagine (unless "Dial F
> for Frankenstein" is correct and you merely have to connect enough stuff
> together...)
>
> PS I'm not sure what sequentiable means, by the way. Wiktionary isn't
> being any help.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

  But here is the thing: the hardware to run AGI already exists! From what
I have gathered so far in my research it is a sufficiently complex and
dynamic network. The AGI, AFAIK, is a "software" machine. It does not need
particular hardware, it just needs the functions that are required to exist
and to be sequentiable properly.


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:48 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 12:43, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi LizR,
>>
>>My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced
>> alien civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the
>> past and what survived are the machines!
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to
>> deceive humans
>>
>
> I hadn't forgotten that, though I'm not sure of the relevance in context.
> But anyway, to a sufficiently advanced AI a human being might not count as
> a "person", in that their behaviour is more or less predictable. "It almost
> fooled me, but it turned out to be just another DNA robot pretending to be
> sentient..."
>
>>
>> "In that case they were built by someone else. "
>>
>>I don't think that AI works like that, now that I am thinking about
>> it. One could take the ID argument seriously and reach that conclusion. I
>> don't think that an AGI can be "designed" any more than you and I are not
>> designed.
>>
>
> I said built, not designed. The hardware itself is designed, and built,
> but the AI that lives inside it is something else again (the same is true
> of brains, of course - our offspring aren't designed ... despite our best
> efforts). A good fictional example is HAL in 2001 who was built, as
> hardware, and then the software was trained - brought up as much as
> possible like you would a child (hence Dr Chandra and "Daisy, Daisy".)
>
> By definition, AFAIK, an artificial intelligence runs on hardware that was
> built. That's the distinction that makes it "artificial" - supposedly,
> though it may turn out to be a non-distinction if we find that circuits can
> be created that grow dynamically as they learn, like neurons - there are
> such things, as recently mentioned on this forum. At that point the "buit"
> distinction will go out the window I imagine.
>
>
>>OTOH, -Following the ID concept for a bit longer - intelligent
>> entities can create conditions and environments within which AGI can
>> evolve. I submit that we will be just as unable to fathom the operations of
>> the "mind" of an AGI as we are of each other's minds. This
>> "unfathomability" is an inherent property of a mind. It is the inability to
>> predict exactly its behavior.
>>
>
> Agreed. In particular, we can't predict our own behaviour.
>
>>
>>My "proof" - if I should call it that - is a bit technical. It
>> involves an argument based on the ability of pair of computers to simulate
>> each others behavior and to have the simulations predicted by another
>> computer. If one computer X could exactly simulate another computer Y, then
>> it is easy to show that X could include Y as a sub-algorithm of some kind
>> and thus X would be able to "inspect" arbitrary content of the mind of B.
>>
>>Is this correct so far?
>>
>
> Yes I think it's simliar to the halting problem, you can "Godelise" it. We
> exhibit this ourselves: we can't model our own behaviour to sufficient
> accuracy to predict it, except approximately. (Some people think this is
> what we mean by Free Will, though I'd rather not open that can of worms
> myself.)
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi LizR,

   My point about Aliens being AGI is simple. A sufficiently advanced alien
civilization may very likely have had a Singularity of its own in the past
and what survived are the machines!

   We forget that the Turing test is merely a test for an ability to
deceive humans

"In that case they were built by someone else. "

   I don't think that AI works like that, now that I am thinking about it.
One could take the ID argument seriously and reach that conclusion. I don't
think that an AGI can be "designed" any more than you and I are not
designed.
   OTOH, -Following the ID concept for a bit longer - intelligent entities
can create conditions and environments within which AGI can evolve. I
submit that we will be just as unable to fathom the operations of the
"mind" of an AGI as we are of each other's minds. This "unfathomability" is
an inherent property of a mind. It is the inability to predict exactly its
behavior.

   My "proof" - if I should call it that - is a bit technical. It involves
an argument based on the ability of pair of computers to simulate each
others behavior and to have the simulations predicted by another computer.
If one computer X could exactly simulate another computer Y, then it is
easy to show that X could include Y as a sub-algorithm of some kind and
thus X would be able to "inspect" arbitrary content of the mind of B.

   Is this correct so far?




On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 September 2014 11:31, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> What if the aliens are AI?
>>
>
> In that case they were built by someone else.
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
>>> aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
>>> not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)
>>>
>>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

What if the aliens are AI?


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On the subject of AI dooming us, at least we have John Mikes' benevolent
> aliens looking out for us. Unless their aim was to get the AIs ... but why
> not build one themselves? (Come to think of it why not build US themselves?)
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

   Could we discuss this further outside of the group?


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:07 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 5:38 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
>I agree. What we see in the current development is, literally,
> evolution - I would not say that it is "Darwinian" per se as it is not
> smooth or continuous. It looks more like a punctuated equilibrium over many
> interacting asynchronous systems. What I don't see is an analogue of a
> genome, such that the Dawkins model is supported.
>
>
>
> I just recently found talks on "dependency injection". Please tell me more!
>
>
>
> Also known as inversion of control. Essentially it involves the
> implementation of interfaces. The interface being the contract. How the
> service implementing the contract goes about doing so is an internal
> matter, what matters to the client is that the contract is honored and the
> given service is performed. Complex systems are assemblages of simpler
> systems… file systems, data repositories, messaging systems, and so on.
> These systems can be composited together using interfaces and abstract
> containers – instead of returning a concrete container of something the
> thing can return something (could be anything) that fulfills a shared
> contract.
>
> Late binding dependency injection is a means of supplying at the late
> deployed run time phase of a configured set of libraries… perhaps behind
> other endpoints and so forth that will implement the required interface and
> provide the needed service. The consuming program need not worry about how
> a given dependency will be fulfilled – that is the injected libraries
> responsibility.
>
> Using a combination of programming behind the abstraction of interfaces
> and IOC containers – frameworks that perform late binding dependency
> injection to fulfill the service needs a program can free itself from any
> particular implementation and smoothly evolve to other better
> implementations as long as its contracts i.e. defined implemented
> interfaces can be fulfilled.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 2:53 PM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
>A colleague of mine has found a few possible examples of
> "self-assembling code" but they are not strings of bits, they are better
> described as a form of topological object. They are based on a different
> model of computation:
>
> http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/quines-in-chemlambda/
>
>
>
> software systems increasingly are becoming comprised of services (making
> use of other services (that call into other services (etc.))) In the
> ecosystem of cloud facing services those that are performant etc. will tend
> to rise and become incorporated – often, increasingly in a late binding
> manner, through a process called dependency injection – into other
> assemblies of multiple different services and internal logic that
> increasingly are themselves becoming exposed as yet other services.
>
> Meta systems, comprised of loosely coupled archipelagos of distinct areas
> of responsibility and roles linked together in the cloud through dynamic
> queues are taking off. Large systems such as say Netflix heavily rely on
> this architecture.
>
> IMO – this is an architecture in which a form of digital Darwinian
> evolution can more easily occur – as compared with traditionally
> application models -- with the services being the organisms and the cloud
> being the ecosystem. As the adoption of dependency injection models
> increases and systems become more late bound with the better exemplars of
> specific services (say logging, monitoring and alarming for example)
> becoming injected into live systems (often without even needing to bring
> them down) best of breed pressures will begin to drive the service
> organisms to evolve into becoming more effective and better options.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

   I agree. What we see in the current development is, literally, evolution
- I would not say that it is "Darwinian" per se as it is not smooth or
continuous. It looks more like a punctuated equilibrium over many
interacting asynchronous systems. What I don't see is an analogue of a
genome, such that the Dawkins model is supported.

I just recently found talks on "dependency injection". Please tell me more!


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 2:53 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
>A colleague of mine has found a few possible examples of
> "self-assembling code" but they are not strings of bits, they are better
> described as a form of topological object. They are based on a different
> model of computation:
>
> http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/quines-in-chemlambda/
>
>
>
> software systems increasingly are becoming comprised of services (making
> use of other services (that call into other services (etc.))) In the
> ecosystem of cloud facing services those that are performant etc. will tend
> to rise and become incorporated – often, increasingly in a late binding
> manner, through a process called dependency injection – into other
> assemblies of multiple different services and internal logic that
> increasingly are themselves becoming exposed as yet other services.
>
> Meta systems, comprised of loosely coupled archipelagos of distinct areas
> of responsibility and roles linked together in the cloud through dynamic
> queues are taking off. Large systems such as say Netflix heavily rely on
> this architecture.
>
> IMO – this is an architecture in which a form of digital Darwinian
> evolution can more easily occur – as compared with traditionally
> application models -- with the services being the organisms and the cloud
> being the ecosystem. As the adoption of dependency injection models
> increases and systems become more late bound with the better exemplars of
> specific services (say logging, monitoring and alarming for example)
> becoming injected into live systems (often without even needing to bring
> them down) best of breed pressures will begin to drive the service
> organisms to evolve into becoming more effective and better options.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 9:43 AM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just want to point out that the process of DNA expression is highly
> dynamic and is multi-factored
>
>
>
> Yes it certainly is, but however dynamic the DNA information is it's still
> just 750 meg (actually it's much less than that considering the massive
> amount of redundancy in our genome). And Telmo's 1000 lines of lisp would
> also have to be highly dynamic.
>
>
>
> Amazing isn’t it. The elegance of self-assembling processes that can do so
> much with so little input. I doubt 1000 lines of computer code is a large
> enough initial instruction set even for a highly self-generating system.
> Maybe a few million lines of code might do it though, if it was code that
> generated other code and so forth in a cascading process similar to
> embryogenesis in eukaryotes.
>
> > The mammalian genomes undergo very extensive genomic reprogramming
> during embryogenesis.
>
>
>
> And where did the information about how to do that reprogramming come
> from? From the original 750 meg.
>
>
>
> Much of it did certainly. But it also comes from the environment… e.g.
> from an external source. The outcome of embryogenesis is affected by
> epigenetic influences that alter what genetic information is expressed and
> also crucially when (at what point in sequences of expression) it occurs.
> This external epigenetic programming instructions are completely outside of
> that original bundle of genetic information.
>
>
>
>
> > This is especially so during the process of embryogenesis, an unfolding
> developmental ch

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

   Exactly! I recall David Bohm speaking about "interpenetration" in this
sense. My current work is on computational environments and I am surprised
as to how little research has been done in this area that I can find.



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:54 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 4:03 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Excellent point, Chris. Entities do not exist in isolation from each
> other... We have to include the "world" or "environment" of an entity when
> we consider it in our models and reasonings.
>
>I wonder how an AGI will develop a model of its world and what kind of
> world would it be.
>
> Read a study that is in the science news lately that within a period even
> as brief as just 24 hours a person or familiar grouping of peoples biotic
> auras will completely take over and colonize the environment of a hotel
> room. We are dragging a microscopic jungle with us wherever we go and in
> the spots we habituate – in those same exact spots our fingerprint specific
> micro-biota also sets up shop.
>
> There are more than fifty different known species of microorganisms that
> have evolved to live on human tooth enamel (and similar numbers for dogs,
> cats, rabbits, crocodiles.. ) that is just the enamel surface… have not
> even hit the gum line where there is a veritable population explosion and
> many more microorganisms.
>
> We live & breathe, are bathed in… a living biotic earth planet soup. Our
> bodies are like sieves and we are filled by a still poorly understood
> micro-biotic ecosystem that interacts with our own body’s cells in so many
> ways both beneficial and parasitic.
>
> The reductionist view of seeing an organism in isolation of its
> environment (including its inner environment) misses the mark and fails to
> capture the dynamic living reality that we are walking talking ecosystems…
> each single one of us…. Veritable jungles living deep inside us. Our lives
> are shared lives.
>
> Life or perhaps living systems, involve multiple actors.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 10:55 AM
>
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
> run that 750 Meg of information contained?
>
>
>
> DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
> anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
> and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
> sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
> cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
> thousand protein enzymes.
>
> Don’t forget to mention the ribosomes.
>
>
>
> And to answer your question, every single bit of information needed to
> make all those different types of RNA and all those different types of
> proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's equivalent to not only
> containing the program but also all the information you need to make the
> computer to run the program on. And if that reminds you a little of the
> chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has caused origin of
> like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows what to do but
> can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things but doesn't
> know what to do, come first?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> Can a single complex multi-cellular organism be understood or defined
> completely without also viewing it in its larger multi-species context?
>
> Within our own selves; we are not alone! And we do not function in life on
> our own either. Our living bodies are thriving diverse communities of
> microorganisms as well. Without all of that externally stored DNA and all
> that dynamic interactions with these other co-evolved organisms would we
> even be able to survive for long? We certainly cannot live without them and
> remain in good health.
>
> Without

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Excellent point, Chris. Entities do not exist in isolation from each
other... We have to include the "world" or "environment" of an entity when
we consider it in our models and reasonings.
   I wonder how an AGI will develop a model of its world and what kind of
world would it be.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:43 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 10:55 AM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
> run that 750 Meg of information contained?
>
>
>
> DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
> anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
> and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
> sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
> cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
> thousand protein enzymes.
>
> Don’t forget to mention the ribosomes.
>
>
>
> And to answer your question, every single bit of information needed to
> make all those different types of RNA and all those different types of
> proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's equivalent to not only
> containing the program but also all the information you need to make the
> computer to run the program on. And if that reminds you a little of the
> chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has caused origin of
> like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows what to do but
> can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things but doesn't
> know what to do, come first?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> Can a single complex multi-cellular organism be understood or defined
> completely without also viewing it in its larger multi-species context?
>
> Within our own selves; we are not alone! And we do not function in life on
> our own either. Our living bodies are thriving diverse communities of
> microorganisms as well. Without all of that externally stored DNA and all
> that dynamic interactions with these other co-evolved organisms would we
> even be able to survive for long? We certainly cannot live without them and
> remain in good health.
>
> Without also accounting for all the services the beneficial micro flora
> and fauna provide us and then adding this externally reposited DNA into the
> tally of the set of information needed to produce a healthy human
> individual… well without doing this we are just looking at the tip of the
> genetic and biological iceberg.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

ion factors is just a protein that binds to specific DNA
> sequences. And where did the information come from to know what sequence of
> amino acids will build that very important protein? From the original 750
> Meg of course.
>
> From that original bundle of genetic code + environmental influences. 90%
> of the living things in a human body DO NOT have human DNA (not by weight
> of course but by census)… our behavior, our desires, our decisions, our
> thoughts, dreams, cravings, fears… our volition… is at least in part being
> driven by these other non-human organisms (especially the huge diverse
> community of microorganisms living in our guts).
>
> The kind of flora and fauna we have in our guts in many ways determines
> who we are, what we think and what we desire. It affects out well-being (or
> lack of it), our emotions and our goals. This genetic information is not
> part of the human DNA, but humans have coevolved with these communities of
> microorganisms and many of them play important (perhaps vital) roles in our
> Darwinian fitness.
>
> The information that triggers a whole slew of affects resulting in a
> changed outcome for the organism could very well have originated in some
> microorganism inhabiting that individuals gut. Our immune system especially
> seems to have co-evolved to work symbiotically with many different species
> of microorganisms.
>
> We require a vast library of CDs to live healthy lives…. Not just our DNA
> CD, but all the DNA CDs of the thousands of organisms that a healthy human
> animal requires (or greatly benefits from having within them). We are not
> isolated organisms apart from the many other cohabitating organisms that
> journey through life living inside our bodies.
>
> > It is – IMO – necessary to understand DNA as [...]
>
>
>
> I'm not saying that understanding how 750 Meg of DNA information manages
> to produce a human being will be easy, figuring out how Telmo's 1000 lines
> of lisp works will not be easy either, but I am saying that's all the
> information there is.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> I agree that it is amazingly compact. We may differ on where we draw the
> line. I do not see a single human (or other eukaryote) only in terms of its
> own DNA + epigenetic meta-programming over the DNA base, but also in terms
> of the ecosystem that exists within.  Both the beneficial and the parasitic
> species within us hugely affect our lives – as they do with every
> multi-cellular species we know about.
>
> We are walking talking ecosystems with biotic auras as unique as
> fingerprints (in fact forensic science is beginning to study this as a
> potential investigative tool)
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

  DNA, RNA, whatever. Does information care how it is expressed?
Semantics... :-) I seem to be mostly agreeing with Chris' reasoning in his
latest post.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 9/1/2014 10:54 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>   > Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required
>> to run that 750 Meg of information contained?
>>
>
>  DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
> anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
> and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
> sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
> cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
> thousand protein enzymes. And to answer your question, every single bit of
> information needed to make all those different types of RNA and all those
> different types of proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's
> equivalent to not only containing the program but also all the information
> you need to make the computer to run the program on. And if that reminds
> you a little of the chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has
> caused origin of like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows
> what to do but can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things
> but doesn't know what to do, come first?
>
>
> The most popular theory is that RNA came first.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi John,

   The chicken or the egg problem is not hard to solve; just figure out how
to get something that is a little bit like both and has an evolution path
into one or the other...
   But your missing my point here. There is an already existing environment
of physical stuff and interactions that is required for the expression of
the information associated with a genome. That is what makes up a "world"
for the genome and very little if any of it is encoded in that 750 Meg.
   Maybe I should have been a bit more clear in my earlier posts.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
> > Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
>> run that 750 Meg of information contained?
>>
>
> DNA contains information on how to make stuff but it doesn't actually do
> anything, only proteins and RNA do things.  DNA by itself just sits there
> and a 1000 line lisp program printed out onto 100 pages of paper would just
> sit there, both need hardware to run on. To run the 750 meg DNA program a
> cell needs Mitochondrial RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and several
> thousand protein enzymes. And to answer your question, every single bit of
> information needed to make all those different types of RNA and all those
> different types of proteins is contained in that original 750 Meg, it's
> equivalent to not only containing the program but also all the information
> you need to make the computer to run the program on. And if that reminds
> you a little of the chicken or the egg problem welcome to the club, it has
> caused origin of like theorists no end of problems. Did DNA, which knows
> what to do but can't do it, come first or did proteins, which can do things
> but doesn't know what to do, come first?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi John,

   Hold it! Where is the information about the physical system required to
run that 750 Meg of information contained? I think that it is a mistake to
assume that Nature builds information sets that have nothing at all to do
with the particulars of the hardware. My reasoning here is that it is the
"hardware" that is acted upon to select the fittest genome - if we follow
Dawkins' line - and the fact that most of the DNA code is made up of
instructions to create this and that sequence of hydrocarbons - aka
proteins, sugars and peptides.

   We should *not* think of the computational aspect of living systems as
blind to hardware, ala computational universality.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Just want to point out that the process of DNA expression is highly
>> dynamic and is multi-factored
>>
>
> Yes it certainly is, but however dynamic the DNA information is it's still
> just 750 meg (actually it's much less than that considering the massive
> amount of redundancy in our genome). And Telmo's 1000 lines of lisp would
> also have to be highly dynamic.
>
>  > The mammalian genomes undergo very extensive genomic reprogramming
>> during embryogenesis.
>>
>
> And where did the information about how to do that reprogramming come
> from? From the original 750 meg.
>
>
>
>> > This is especially so during the process of embryogenesis, an
>> unfolding developmental choreographed switching process that is controlled
>> by epigenetic programming (methylation /demethylation and other mechanisms).
>>
>
> Methylation means that occasionally a Methyl group might be added to one
> of the DNA bases, a base would have a Methyl group or it would not so it's
> still digital. There are 4 bases so AT MOST each of the 3 billion bases
> would represent 3 bits instead of 2, so the information content would
> increase from 750 Meg to 1.12 Gig and with a file compression program like
> ZIP you could still fit all of it on a CD.
>
> But in reality Epigenetic information is pretty clearly of minor
> importance compared with the DNA sequence information, so I doubt it would
> even cause it to increase to 751 Meg. And the evidence that Epigenetic
> heredity exists for more than one generation is very meager.
>
>
>> > DNA is not a direct single layered – single meaning -- instruction set
>> encoded and fixed.
>>
>
> You can assign as many layers of meaning on it as you like but nothing can
> change the fact that you could put all the information in the entire human
> DNA genome on a old fashioned CD and still have enough room on it for a
> Beatles album from 1965.
>
>
>> >  The same strand of DNA, depending on the dynamic action of the large
>> number of transcription factors
>>
>
> A transcription factors is just a protein that binds to specific DNA
> sequences. And where did the information come from to know what sequence of
> amino acids will build that very important protein? From the original 750
> Meg of course.
>
> > It is – IMO – necessary to understand DNA as [...]
>>
>
> I'm not saying that understanding how 750 Meg of DNA information manages
> to produce a human being will be easy, figuring out how Telmo's 1000 lines
> of lisp works will not be easy either, but I am saying that's all the
> information there is.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Telmo,

  Access to resources seems to only allow for reproduction and
continuation. For an AGI to "act on the world" it has to be able to use
those resources in a manner that implies that it can "sense the world" that
it exist within. This seems to be a catch-22 situation. ISTM, that if a
computation has no means to model itself as existing in a world or the
equivalent, how would it ever operate as if it did in the first place?
Blind clock-work?



On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:24 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 1 September 2014 04:27, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > The Kolmogorov complexity of AGI could be relatively low -- maybe it
>>>> can be expressed in 1000 lines of lisp.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not a crazy idea because we know for a fact that in the entire
>>> human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each
>>> base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to
>>> just 750 meg, and that's enough assembly instructions to make not just a
>>> brain and all its wiring but a entire human baby. So the instructions MUST
>>> contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron up this way and then and
>>> then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion times". And
>>> there is a huge amount of redundancy in the human genome, if you used a
>>> file compression program like ZIP on that 750 meg you could easily put the
>>> entire thing on half a CD, not a DVD not a Blu ray just a old fashioned
>>> steam powered vanilla CD.
>>>
>>> This is enough information to build a general purpose conscious being,
>> it would appear, but a baby is only born with some fairly simple
>> instinctive behaviour (plus the adolescent gains some more instinctive
>> behaviour at puberty). Even the visual cortex, which is probably not
>> conscious and probably comes out roughly similar in most people, is created
>> by trial and error. The neocortex must be even more so, to the Nth degree.
>> Hence you have 750 meg of data (or whatever the figure is) that builds an
>> infant, then you have a world which educates them.
>>
>> As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby
>> needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
>> consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
>> is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and with
>> other people (i.e. assimilate culture).
>>
>
> Agreed, but this is precisely what makes the AGI scenario scary. Imagine
> this potentially simple algorithm (similar to the one encoded in our DNA)
> being able to bootstrap itself with the information available on the
> Internet. Now imagine it has access to computational resources that makes
> it 1000x faster than the average human brain
>
>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copyin

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

   Have you seen any studies of the "Ameoba dubia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium>" that look into what their
genome is expressing?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933061/
 seems to suggest to me the possibility that the genome is acting as a
"brain"!


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:05 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/31/2014 9:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby
>>> needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of
>>> consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that
>>> is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and with
>>> other people (i.e. assimilate culture).
>>>
>>>  This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves
>> in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome,
>> and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which
>> is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a
>> large genome directly encoding our knowledge.
>>
>> Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular
>> enough to be learnable.
>>
>
> So that's why Amoeba dubia has a genome 200x bigger than ours?  It must
> live in a very irregular environment.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Chris,

  Here is the thing. Does not the difficulty in creating a computational
simulation of the brain in action give you pause? Why are we assuming that
the AI will have a "mind" (program) that can be parsed by humans?

   AFAIK, AGI (following Ben Goertzel's convention) will be completely
incomprehensible to us. If we are trying to figure out its "values", what
could we do better than to run the thing in a sandbox and let it interact
in with "test AI". Can we "prove" that is intelligent?

   I don't think so! Unless we could somehow "mindmeld" with it and the
mindmeld results in a mutual "understanding", how could we have a proof.
But melding minds together is a hard thing to do


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Paul King
>
>
>
> Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on
> unfounded assumptions?
>
>
>
> Perhaps, and I see your point.
>
> However, am going to try to make the following case:
>
> If we take AI as some emergent networked meta-system, arising in a
> non-linear, fuzzy, non-demarcated manner from pre-existing (increasingly
> networked) proto-AI smart systems (+vast repositories), such as already
> exist… and then drill down through the code layers – through the logic
> (DNA) – embedded within and characterizing all those sub systems, and
> factor in all the many conscious and unconscious human assumptions and
> biases that exist throughout these deeply layered systems… I would argue
> that what could emerge (& given the trajectory will emerge fairly soon I
> think) will very much have our human fingerprints sown all the way through
> its source code, its repositories, its injected values. At least initially.
>
> I am concerned by the kinds of “values” that are becoming encoded in
> sub-system after sub-system, when the driving motivation for these layered
> complex self-navigating, increasingly autonomous systems is to create
> untended killer robots as well as social data mining smart agents to
> penetrate social networks and identify targets. If this becomes the major
> part of the code base from which AI emerges then isn’t it a fairly good
> reason to be concerned about the software DNA of what could emerge? If the
> code base is driven by the desire to establish and maintain a system
> characterized by having a highly centralized and vertical social control,
> deep data mining defended by an army increasingly comprised of autonomous
> mobile warbots… isn’t this a cause for concern?
>
> But then -- admittedly -- who really knows how an emergent machine based
> (probably highly networked) self-aware intelligence might evolve; my
> concern is the initial conditions (algorithms etc.) we are embedding into
> the source code from which an AI would emerge.
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA,
> DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent
> untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to
> the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of
> super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent
> machine devoted to the killing of "enemy" human beings (+ opposing drones I
> suppose as well)
>
>
>
> This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
> --
>
> *From:* meekerdb 
> *To:*
> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>
>
>
> Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together
> globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
> superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe
> wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked
> some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit.
> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause."
>
> But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to
> produce a pause.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM
>
> Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford
> Professor
>
>
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everythin

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

" "If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the
sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. "

  Sanity is not a common property of crowds, we are not considering
"wisdom" but actual observer behaviors of humans in large groups. If we
define "wise" behavior that which does not generate higher entropy in its
environment, crows, more often than not, tend to not be wise.

   If an AI where to emerge from the interactions of many computers, would
it be expected to be "sane"? What is sanity anyway?

  Another question is: Would AI have a view of the universe that can be
matched up with ours? If not, how would we expect it to "see the world"
that it interacts with? Our worlds and that of AI may be disjoint!


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Stephen Paul King 
wrote:

> Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on
> unfounded assumptions?
>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>>
>> AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA,
>> NSA, DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent
>> untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to
>> the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of
>> super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent
>> machine devoted to the killing of "enemy" human beings (+ opposing drones I
>> suppose as well)
>>
>> This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
>>   --
>>  *From:* meekerdb 
>> *To:*
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>>
>>  Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together
>> globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of
>> superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe
>> wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked
>> some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit.
>> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause."
>>
>> But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to
>> produce a pause.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM
>>
>> Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford
>> Professor
>>
>>  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-
>> intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/YJeHJO5dNqQ/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: AI Dooms Us

[Stephen Paul King]

Are our fears of AI running amuck and killing random persons based on 
unfounded assumptions?

On Monday, August 25, 2014 3:20:24 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> AI is being developed and funded primarily by agencies such as DARPA, NSA, 
> DOD (plus MIC contractors). After all smart drones with independent 
> untended warfighting capabilities offer a significant military advantage to 
> the side that possesses them. This is a guarantee that the wrong kind of 
> super-intelligence will come out of the process... a super-intelligent 
> machine devoted to the killing of "enemy" human beings (+ opposing drones I 
> suppose as well)
>
> This does not bode well for a benign super-intelligence outcome does it?
>   --
>  *From:* meekerdb >
> *To:* 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 12:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AI Dooms Us
>  
>  Bostrom says, "If humanity had been sane and had our act together 
> globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of 
> superintelligence until we figured out how to do so safely. And then maybe 
> wait another generation or two just to make sure that we hadn't overlooked 
> some flaw in our reasoning. And then do it -- and reap immense benefit. 
> Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to pause."
>
> But maybe he's forgotten the Dark Ages.  I think ISIS is working hard to 
> produce a pause.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/25/2014 10:27 AM 
>
> Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford 
> Professor  
>
>  
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/artificial-intelligence-oxford_n_5689858.html?ir=Science
>  
>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Bruno,

  Is the measure idempotent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence>?


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
> yielding a different probability for each quantum state
>  and a different measure for each different scenario
> unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
> Do you disagree?
> Richard
>
>
>
> The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square
> normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM
> and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real
> numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a
> measure on the transition . In quantum mechanics it is given by [ I b>]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the
> computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a
> mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity
> of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to
> a computation).
>
> The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The
> first person histories with computable sequence like "WW...", or
> "WMWMWMWMWM... ", becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high
> incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness).
>
> The ultimate protocol is  the "logical" structure of the sigma_1
> arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with
> the halting oracle so that we can expect a "non-machine" for the first
> person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by
> simple incompleteness.
>
> The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus
> (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it
> provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus +
> the arithmetical constraints)  should be derivable (and the measure one
> admits a quantization confirming things go well there).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish <
>> li...@hpcoders.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> > > > Hi Russell,
>> > > >
>> > > > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
>> example. We
>> > > > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
>> that
>> > > > come from?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
>> > > expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
>> > > measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
>> > > default assumption for most purposes.
>> >
>> >
>> > The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is
>> close to
>> > the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
>> > In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
>> measure
>> > of the reals is invariant.
>> > Richard
>> >
>>
>> What do you mean? What is this "quantum measure"?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>>
>> 
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because y

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Stephen Paul King]

't say it is 100% proven that god doesn't exist.
>
>
> Didn't you slip from "something or someone beyond our current explanation"
> to "god".  You speak for atheists, what do you have to say for
> religionists?  Are they just worshiping some unknown possibility.  What is
> the god they believe in - that's the god I don't believe in.  I think you
> have muddled the word "god" in order make it seem unreasonable to assert
> definitively that "god" doesn't exist.  But in the process you've made
> "god" into something quite different from the god of religion. A mere
> shadow of the once powerful Yaweh, Baal, Zeus, Thor,...
>
>
>
> Earth was thought to be a tortoise, then we learn better.
>
> Similarly the notion of God is the notion of an all encompassing one
> unifying all things. It was thought to be a sort of father in the sky, but
> we might learn better here too.
>
> Then, the God of the materialist is the physical universe. Here too, we
> might learn better.
>
> Materialism might be right, but with comp, we get a problem of how that
> physical universe can select a consciousness in a stream of consciousness
> in arithmetic.
>
> The materialist religion has a tendency to abstract from the existence of
> consciousness. That's OK as a fertile methodological strategy, but in my
> opinion it misses the most important things: persons. It fails also to
> explain the nature of matter and where it comes from.
>
> No problem, computer science and machine's computer science, and the
> difference between, unravel a different theology than the materialist one,
> which seems promising on those questions. To put is roughly: matter looks
> like the derivative of mind. Or mind is the primitive of matter (pun
> included).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  If you are going to narrowly define atheism as not believing in the god
> of the bible, then of course I will agree with you (I will even throw in
> the Norse and Egyptian gods and a few others, if you like). But that isn't
> what I am talking about when I say Atheism, and I doubt it's what Asimov
> meant either.
>
>
> You seem to be equating atheism with asserting that nothing beyond our
> knowledge of nature exists.  Not just failing to believe that such exists,
> but having 100% confidence that it doesn't.  I don't know anyone who calls
> himself an atheist and who makes such a strong statement.  Dawkins has
> explicity said he is not absolutely certain there is no god of any kind.
> Vic Stenger explicitly says he cannot rule out a deist god.
>
>
> Well, they still ignore machine's theology, isn't it? With the original
> Platonist notion of God (the truth we search inward, about which the first
> thing we know is that it is above us, ineffable, etc).
>
> If atheism is the disbelief in the literal Christian god, then all taoist,
> jewish, muslims, hinduists, etc. are atheists.
>
> Why did Cantor wrote to the pope, and develop long correspondences with a
> bishop, to discuss about the possible blaspheme of his naming of the higher
> infinities?
> Cantor was aware that his set theory was already a sort of theology.
>
> The belief in God is a bit like the belief in some infinite. In math it
> can simplifies the proofs, despite for many proofs, its use can be
> eliminated.
>
> There are two main reasons for people to believe in God.
>
> 1) because their parents told so.
> 2) because they look inward and get "personal evidence" (mystical
> experience)
>
> And there are many intermediates, where people believes in God because
> their parents told so, and they look inward and get evidences that they
> interpret as confirmation of what their parents said. Some might look
> inward enough to understand that what their parents said should be
> interpreted less literally, for example.
>
> But once a religion becomes a political tool, then "looking inward" is
> badly seen, and the free research is banished. Logic get quickly abandoned
> too.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/X0w0JtCyK1U/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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:/

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> >I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome
> the
> > inherent zero measure?
> >
>
> Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
> items.
>
> Consider the set of real numbers matching the constraint that the
> initial sequence in the binary expansion is 0.110000111
>
> Even though each real number has measure zero, the set of all numbers
> matching that constraint has measure 2^{-13} (about 0.000122).
>
> Assuming the standard measure on the reals, of course.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Russell,

   I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> >Let me rephrase. You wrote: " With COMP, the chance of our
> > physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
> > is if COMP is false."
> >
> > ​​
> >I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
> > the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
> > introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with
> the
> > usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very
> biased
> > sample.
> >
>
> By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible
> COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with
> certainty.
>
> That has nothing to do with measure.
>
> Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when
> sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that
> number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is
> constrained by a finite number of observations.
>
> You just need to ask the right question...
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Russell,

   Let me rephrase. You wrote: " With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false."

​​
   I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the
usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased
sample.



On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >Bruno wrote previously "...the physical reality has to be given by the
> > measure on all computations." Would this not imply that physical reality
> > has a zero measure?
> >
> >   My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
> > universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
> > is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
> > universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?
> >
> > If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
> > completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
> > bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
> > ​​
> >
>
> I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our
> physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
> is if COMP is false.
>
> Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations
> - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will
> always be finite.
>
> It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low
> measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> 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
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

   Bruno wrote previously "...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations." Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?

  My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?

If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
​​




On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
> simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
> metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of
> assumption.
>
>
> But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>
>
>   And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to
> 'prove to much'.  It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical
> theory is already in my arithmetical theory.
>
>
>
> Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve
> partially) that measure problem.
>
> That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But
> the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on
> all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the
> measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be
> derived from the SWE.
>
>
>
> Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument.
>
>
> It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple
> general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable.
>
> I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a
> partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological
> perspective.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Stephen Paul King]

"To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless. "  Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
organized...


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:52 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2014 11:55,  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in
>>>> popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by
>>>> a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason
>>>> it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up
>>>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual
>>>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence,
>>>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with
>>>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it
>>>> wouldn't happen
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
>>> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
>>> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
>>> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to
>>> catch their parasites...
>>>
>>
>> there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this.
>> It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is
>> treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his
>> short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther
>> bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and
>> underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between
>> ape and pig can't go on all fours.
>>
>> this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a
>> microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits
>> is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level
>> featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are
>> impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are
>> acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share
>> parentage for that.
>>
>> It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to
>> evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of
>> distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts
>> over. He did his legwork
>>
>> does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site
>> macroevolution.net
>>
>
> not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point:
>
> *sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be
> present*.s
>
> --> of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic
> sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different
> traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like
> this, when, where.
>
>  An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals
> affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical
> features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ
> in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome,
> sequence data is completely useless.
>
> --> he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really
> because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a
> whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy
> and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his
> argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/X0w0JtCyK1U/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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://gr

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

  This phrase in the article makes me doubt that the writer thereof did his 
homework:
"for some unknown reason the flashes synchronize over time.”" The 
synchronization of weakly coupled oscillators is a well known phenomena! It 
should be pointed out that in the human brain, global synchronization is 
harmful. It is the cause of epilepsy: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy#Mechanism.

On Monday, May 19, 2014 2:26:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? 
>
>
> No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, 
> even infinite enumerable set of oscillators. You would need a continuum of 
> oscillators, with an explicit special non computable hamiltonian. Today, 
> there is nothing in nature which would threat comp, except the collapse of 
> the wave packet in theories where this is a physical phenomenon. Even in 
> that case, it would be a computation with oracle, and not change much of 
> the consequences. Anyway, I am not sure I can make sense of the wave 
> collapse being a physical phenomenon, and even less that this play a role 
> in the brain computation.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  
> 15046Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works like the 
> brain
> *Expand Messages*
>
>- richard ruquist
>May 15 2:09 PM
>View Source
>-  0 Attachment
>   - 
>Synchronized oscillators may allow for computing that works like the 
>brainMay 15, 2014
>[image: oscillating_switch]
>This is a cartoon of an oscillating switch, the basis of a new type of 
>low-power analog computing (credit: Credit: Nikhil Shukla, Penn State)
>Computing is currently based on binary (Boolean) logic, but a new type 
>of computing architecture created by electrical engineers at Penn 
> State stores 
>information in the frequencies and phases of periodic signals and could 
>work more like the human brain.
>It would use a fraction of the energy necessary for today’s computers, 
>according to the engineers.
>To achieve the new architecture, they used a thin film of vanadium 
>oxide on a titanium dioxide substrate to create an oscillating switch. 
>Vanadium dioxide is called a “wacky oxide” because it transitions from a 
>conducting metal to an insulating semiconductor and vice versa with the 
>addition of a small amount of heat or electrical current.
>*Biological synchronization for associative processing*
>Using a standard electrical engineering trick, Nikhil Shukla, graduate 
>student in electrical engineering, added a series resistor to the oxide 
>device to stabilize oscillations. When he added a second similar 
>oscillating system, he discovered that, over time, the two devices began 
> to 
>oscillate in unison, or synchronize.
>This coupled system could provide the basis for non-Boolean computing. 
>Shukla worked with Suman Datta, professor of electrical engineering, and 
>co-advisor Roman Engel-Herbert, assistant professor of materials science 
>and engineering, Penn State. They reported their results May 14 in 
> *Scientific 
>Reports* (open access).
>“It’s called a small-world network,” explained Shukla. “You see it in 
>lots of biological systems, such as certain species of fireflies. The 
> males 
>will flash randomly, but then for some unknown reason the flashes 
>synchronize over time.” The brain is also a small-world network of closely 
>clustered nodes that evolved for more efficient information processing.
>“Biological synchronization is everywhere,” added Datta. “We wanted to 
>use it for a different kind of computing called associative processing, 
>which is an analog rather than digital way to compute.”
>An array of oscillators can store patterns — for instance, the color 
>of someone’s hair, their height and skin texture. If a second area of 
>oscillators has the same pattern, they will begin to synchronize, and the 
>degree of match can be read out, without consuming a lot of energy and 
>requiring a lot of transistors, as in Boolean computing.
>*A neuromorphic computer chip*
>Datta is collaborating with Vijay Narayanan, professor of computer 
>science and engineering, Penn State, in exploring the use of these coupled 
>oscillations to solve visual recognition problems more efficiently than 
>existing embedded vision processors.
>Shukla and Datta called on the expertise of Cornell University 
>materials scientist Darrell Schlom to make the vanadium dioxide thin film, 
>which has extremely high quality similar to single crystal silicon. Arijit 
>Raychowdhury, computer engineer, and Abhinav Parihar graduate student, 
> both 
>of Georgia Tech, mathematically simulated the nonlinear dynamics of 
> coupled 
>phase transitions in the vanadium dioxide de

Re: Climate models

[Stephen Paul King]

Polygamy is common for most mammals


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 17 April 2014 02:36,  wrote:
>
>> Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after
>> their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options.
>> Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to
>> share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical
>> reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede.
>> This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the
>> option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same
>> month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this
>> universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville.
>>
>>
>> Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the
> monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one
> parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate
> their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy -
> as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference
> in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would
> consider that racist / non-PC  ... still, seems logical nevertheless.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

[Stephen Paul King]

This paper is the best I have seen as a method to construct a real AI:
 http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf

It is already built, it is just a matter of scaling it up But don't
assume that such AI will perceive the same physical world as we do!


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:59 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/15/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Read what I wrote. Machine intelligence is not a question of brickology.
> Intelligence is not something which can be engineered.
> It is a question of exploration of some reality, and it is a question of
> us being sufficiently inetlligent to recognize intelligence here and there
> along that exploration.
>
>
> Are you saying we cannot build an intelligent machine?  Or are you saying
> we can only build a machine capable of learning to be intelligent?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

[Stephen Paul King]

 Try this: http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~belgin/Population/malthus.html

"Malthus was not content with one classification system for his checks -
or, perhaps, in the overwhelming disorganization of the first Essay, dashed
off at the spur of the moment as it were, he simply lost track of the fact
that he had, in fact, developed two parallel systems. The second, which
took a more moralistic view, divided checks into misery and vice. This
system, like the first, was exclusive, all checks falling into one category
or the other: "In short," stated Malthus, "it is difficult to conceive any
check to population which does not come under the description of some
species of misery or vice," (Essay.. 106). Roughly speaking, these were
checks visited upon man by the outside world, and checks which came from
man himself. Misery included such things as hunger, poverty, and disease.
"Vice," was a concept which Malthus, with sensibilities typical of the
time, was reluctant to define closely. The closest he came to defining vice
explicitly was not until the publication of A Summary View, wherein he
listed the checks of vice that operated in a preventative manner: "the sort
of intercourse which renders some of the women of large towns unprolific; a
general corruption of morals with regard to the sex, which has a similar
effect; unnatural passions and improper arts to prevent the consequences of
irregular connections," (Summary... p. 250). With these delicate terms,
Malthus referred to prostitution, venereal disease, homosexuality, and,
notably, abortion and birth control."

What Malthus seems to have not seen is that resources availability curves
where not a priori fixed. Technology bends the curves...


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than
>> a man and a woman,
>>
>
> If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am
> married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not
> real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how
> that would affect my life.
> I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can
> do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not
> discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc.
>
>   neither climate can be changed by little ants like us,
>>
>
> Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons.
>
>
>> neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational
>> identities can be fabricated,
>>
>
> But nations themselves are fabricated. They are power structures. The more
> technology progresses the bigger power structures you can create. But we
> can agree on something: there are people trying to create such global power
> structures, and this is not good news. I believe that paradise is
> decentralised.
>
>
>> neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies
>> essentially made by men.
>>
>
> Made be men made by women. Then it's Lisp all the way down (sorry,
> couldn't resist the obscure nerdy joke)
>
>
>>  Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women  for the
>> assassination of  his child.
>>
>
> I don't know how it feels to have an abortion. The only thing I know is
> that it's none of my business. It also saddens me when we have the
> technology to prevent suffering, but this relief is denied because of
> ancient desert superstitions.
>
>
>>
>> But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
>> delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that
>> "things are gonna change" "another world is possible" and "a catastrophe is
>> coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X" where X is
>> invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
>> in a central elite.
>>
>
> We can agree on this one.
>
>
>>
>>
>> In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
>> economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
>> of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Read  Corona's post carefully.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did, and I find his general ideas inter

Re: Climate models

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Alberto,

  Cost is always an issue. It cannot be avoided (contra the belief of
magical thinkers) but it can be minimized by increasing the efficiency of
systems.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> Stephen
>
> hehehe. Ok I will not.
>
> Reality can fight  alone and will win inevitably against the ones that
> deny it.
>
> The problem is the price to pay in the process
>
>
> 2014-04-10 18:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King :
>
> Alberto,
>>
>>   Don't feed the trolls...
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults
>>>  andd ad-hominem straw man etc,  have any effect across internet except to
>>> laugh at you?
>>>
>>> The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has
>>> gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist :
>>>
>>> The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are
>>>> bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex
>>>> is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona <
>>>> agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of
>>>>> gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary
>>>>> reasons. If any, the current promotion of "gay rights" will exacerbate 
>>>>> true
>>>>> homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is
>>>>> increasing the violence against women.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona :
>>>>>
>>>>> sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other
>>>>>> than a man and a woman,  neither climate can be changed by little ants 
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither
>>>>>> supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live 
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither 
>>>>>> abortion
>>>>>> can be promoted without immense pain in women  for the assassination of
>>>>>>  his child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international
>>>>>> delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> "things are gonna change" "another world is possible" and "a catastrophe 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X" where X is
>>>>>> invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power
>>>>>> in a central elite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an
>>>>>> economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle
>>>>>> of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read  Corona's post carefully.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth
>>>>>>> considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete 
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday
>>>>>>> school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The
>>>>>>> former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human
>>>>>>> transcendence. This video still works