On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk > > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk > >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk > >> >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> John Clark-12 wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk > >> >> >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is > >> >> true. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following > >> sentence > >> >> >> without > >> >> >> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently > >> assert > >> >> but > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> > computer can: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is > >> >> true." > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot > consistently > >> >> >> assert > >> >> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik > is > >> >> >> > asserting > >> >> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot > >> assert > >> >> all > >> >> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. > >> >> That > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have. > >> >> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right > >> >> that > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any > >> >> >> difference. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and > more > >> >> >> empirical: > >> >> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by > >> >> >> programming > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> computer' > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to > >> my > >> >> >> problem > >> >> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible > >> >> because > >> >> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer > >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe > >> that > >> >> you > >> >> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true. > >> >> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get > >> out > >> >> of > >> >> >> programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it > >> >> shows > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, > >> >> because > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> are the one programming it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we > built > >> >> >> them), > >> >> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I once played with an artificial life program. The program > >> consisted > >> >> of > >> >> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired > >> >> brains. > >> >> > Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's > >> >> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at > >> >> > gathering food. But after running the evolution overnight I awoke > >> to > >> >> find > >> >> > them doing something quite surprising. Something that neither I, > >> nor > >> >> the > >> >> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of. > >> >> > > >> >> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do? If so, > >> why > >> >> > would > >> >> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising? > >> >> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising > >> because > >> >> we > >> >> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give > >> it > >> >> will > >> >> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They > just > >> >> won't > >> >> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give > >> >> them. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the > >> > universal dovetailer. > >> The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense > >> of > >> universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned, > that > >> doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example, > >> prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages > >> don't). > >> > > > > It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies > > exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels. > > > ???? > > Sorry but that's nonsense. Look at the word: "break" > At the lowest level it is just one word, yet at the higher level there are > many possibilities what it could mean. > > Exactly the same applies to computations. For every computation are there > infinitely many possibilities what it could mean (1+1=2 could mean that you > add two apples, or two oranges, or that you add the value of two registers > or that you increase the value of a flag). > Many very long computations are *relatively* less ambigous (relative to > us), > but they are still ambigous. > > Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or > nothing), just like the sentence "You can interpret whatever you want into > this sentence..." or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. > > A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any possible way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning. If you see a particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly be interpreted as addition, for example. > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > For example: if you exhausted every possible configuration of atoms, you > > would also exhaust every possible chemical, every possible life form, and > > every possible human. > Only because there is no absolute seperation between levels in actual > physical reality. > That is, you can't find atoms without a context of things and you can't > find > things that don't contain atoms. > You can have programs with no separation between levels too. You might have a simulation of atomic interactions, and within this simulation the atoms could be arranged in any possible way to create any possible structure. Among these structures, there is no clear separation. > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > >> > >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write > >> a > >> program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD > >> doesn't > >> do. > >> > > > > But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD. > First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation. > > Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD. The UD > itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that > dilineates > on program from the others. > Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory space. > > It is like there are no specific numbers in the number 123456789. it is one > number; it doesn't contain numbers. We only interpret that into it (using > some algorithm), but then using the right algorithm, we can construct all > numbers out of it. Still no one would say that 123456789 exhaust all > numbers. > > Programs don't have to look at the whole number and interpret it as such. They can focus on smaller sections of it. Indeed, almost every program does this. Your computer's RAM represents a single number with billions of digits, but each program on your computer focuses only at little pieces and manipulates only small pieces of this one, very big, number. > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program. > No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation. You > can only interpret entities into it. > > Why do I have to? As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be conscious? > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > >> It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not > >> derived > >> from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce > >> every > >> possible output some day. > >> > >> Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility but > >> also > >> encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones and > >> producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain > >> time > >> limit. > >> > > > > And there are processes that do this, within the UD. > No. It can't select a computation because it includes all computations. To > select a computation you must exclude some compuations, and the UD can't do > that (since it is precisely going through all computations) > > So it selects them all, and excludes nothing. How is this a meaningful limitation? If you look at two entities, X, and Y. X can do everything Y can do, and more, but Y can only do a subset of what X does. You say that X is more limited than Y because it can't do only what Y does. > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > The UD is an example > > that programs can grow beyond the intentions of the creator. > I don't dispute that at all. I very much agree that computer rise beyond > the > intention of their users (because we don't actually know what the program > will actually do). > > Okay. Do you believe a computer program could evolve to be more intelligent than its programmer? I don't know if you watch star trek, but is there a reason the android Data could not develop and become smarter than his creator Dr. Soong? > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > The UD itself > > isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences. > I am not even saying that the UD isn't intelligent. I am just saying that > humans are intelligent in a way that the UD is not (and actually the > opposite is true as well). > > Okay, could you clarify in what ways we are more intelligent? For example, could you show a problem that can a human solve that a computer with unlimited memory and time could not? > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You might say we only do what we were instructed to do by the laws > >> of > >> >> >> nature, but this would be merely a metaphor, not an actual fact > >> (the > >> >> laws > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> nature are just our approach of describing the world, not > something > >> >> that > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> somehow actually programming us). > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true > >> laws, > >> >> not > >> >> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor. > >> >> > > >> >> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our > >> brain > >> >> are > >> >> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer. The > >> point > >> >> is > >> >> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most > primitive > >> of > >> >> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built. I think > >> it > >> >> is > >> >> > an > >> >> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of > >> >> computation > >> >> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we > >> know, > >> >> we > >> >> > seem to be in the same boat. > >> >> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature > >> can > >> >> be > >> >> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, > it > >> >> seems > >> >> all laws are necessarily incomplete. > >> >> It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely > >> follows > >> >> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no > >> evidence > >> >> for it either. > >> >> > >> > > >> > So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for > >> > humans to be creative? > >> No. They don't exist in the first place, except in the mind of > >> physicists. > >> They are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the world. Just > >> like > >> "The sun rises in the morning" (except more accurate, of course). > >> > >> > > Do you think it is possible, in principal, for human beings to live in a > > realm that had fixed laws? > No, because such a realm is an impossibility. Fixed laws are only > abstraction (very useful and quite accurate ones, though). > > I might be mistaken, but I get the impression you are trying to avoid the implications of this line of reasoning. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
