From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or
even
in a
single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate
all
Turing machines to find one
is the time
to take action, getting in early and gaining a foothold *wink*.
John
From: Eric B. Ramsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:03 AM
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [singularity] Vista/AGI
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You won't see a singularity. As I explain in
http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html an intelligent agent (you)
is not capable of recognizing agents of significantly greater
intelligence. We don't know whether a singularity has already
There is no way to know if we are living in a nested simulation, or even
in a
single simulation. However there is a mathematical model: enumerate all
Turing machines to find one that simulates a universe with intelligent
life.
What if that nest of simulations loop around somehow? What
Just a thought, maybe there are some commonalities across AGI designs where
components could be built at a lower cost. An investor invests in the
company that builds component x that is used by multiple AGI projects. Then
you have your little AGI ecosystem of companies all competing yet
The payoff on AGI justifies investment. The problem is that the probability
of success is in question. But spinoff technologies developed along the way
could have value.
I think though that particular proof of concepts may not need more than a
few people. Putting it all together would require
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think though that particular proof of concepts may not need more
than a
few people. Putting it all together would require more than a few.
Then the
resources needed
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's true. The visual perception process is altered after the
experiment to
favor recognition of objects seen in the photos. A recall test doesn't
measure this effect. I don't know of a good way to measure the quantity
of
information
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there really a bit per synapse? Is representing a synapse with a
bit an
accurate enough simulation? One synapse is a very complicated system.
A typical neural network simulation uses several bits
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
By equivalent computation I mean one whose behavior is
indistinguishable
from the brain, not an approximation. I don't believe that an exact
simulation requires copying the implementation
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And that is the whole point. You don't need to simulate the brain at
the
molecular level or even at the level of neurons. You just need to
produce an
equivalent computation. The whole point of such fine grained
simulations is
to counter
From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26/02/2008, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an assumed simplification tendency going on that a human
brain could be represented as a string of bits. It's easy to assume but
I think that a more correct way to put
From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, maybe you can't actually rule it out until you make a copy and
see how close it has to be to think the same as the original, but I
strongly suspect that getting it right down to the molecular level
would be enough. Even if quantum
There is an assumed simplification tendency going on that a human brain
could be represented as a string of bits. It's easy to assume but I think
that a more correct way to put it would be that it could be approximated.
Exactly how close the approximation could theoretically get is entirely
The program that is isomorphically equivalent to raindrop positions inputted
into the hypothetical computer implements a brain. I have a blinkey safety
light on the back of my bicycle that goes on and off at 1 sec frequency.
There exists a hypothetical computer that that takes a 1 sec on/off pulse
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consciousness, like many natural language terms,
is extremely polysemous
A formal definition of reflective consciousness
was given by me in a blog post a few days ago
http://goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm
-- Ben G
This is a great post BTW.
One role of singularity fiction is to explore what the singularity really is
and the views of it from different perspectives. Mass market many times wants
to see the exciting dangers of technological advances. Maybe there should be a
movie about the nirvana-esque post human possibilities. A few
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting question. Suppose you simulated a world where agents had
enough
intelligence to ponder this question. What do you think they would do?
My guess is that agents in a simulated evolutionary environment that
correctly
believe that
From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think simulation is becoming the new reality. Just a new name.
Yes reality is relative. Our view of reality is probably so far off from what
it actually is in this universe. And reality I would think is very species
dependant. It's only an
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is unlikely that any knowledge you now have would be useful in
another
simulation. Knowledge is only useful if it helps propagate your DNA.
An agent taking data from one simulation to the next could store the data
within the agent or the data
I would look at multiverses with different physical constants. Say
speed-of-light in one multiverse was larger than ours, say WAY larger
example 10^100*c. If intermultiverse communication is possible how would the
physics work out if a simulation or manipulation was conducted from one to
the
was thinking of far more prosaic efforts such
as comparisons to physical observations that we actually know something
about.
John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would look at multiverses with different physical constants. Say
speed-of-light in one multiverse was larger than ours, say WAY
If this universe is simulated the simulator could also be a simulation and
that simulator could also be a simulation. and so on.
.
What is that behavior of an organism called when the organism, alife or not,
starts analyzing things and questioning whether or not it is a simulation?
It's
They could always be prettied up I guess, part human, part machine,
nano-mush.
Also the plain old biologics will undergo a lot of genetic engineering and
artificial selection so these guys will change but maybe not a species
divergence.
Yes bizzarro variants will happen. It's gonna get weird.
During the singularity process there will be a human species split into at
least 3 new species - totally software humans where even birth occurs in
software, the plain old biological human, and the hybrid
man-machine-computer. The software humans will rapidly diverge into other
species, the
I suggest audio conferencing with or w/o web collaboration. Audio
conferencing with multiple speakers is very efficient (some conferences are
listen-only). I just finished working several years in conferencing RD
developing pay systems but I know there are multiple free ones. There's
Skype as
I do wonder though if you can have an intelligent entity that does not take
any input. Basically just a pattern generator/injector on output streams or
internal data store. Would it have to do pattern matching internally? Just
wondering if pattern matching could be thrown out of the equation
27 matches
Mail list logo
