The notion of free will based on the deterministc nature of the
phisics or computation is a degenerated, false problem which is an
obsession of the Positivists. Look form "degenerated" and
"Positivism" to find mi opinion about that in this list if you are
interested.
2012/8/24 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>> 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.
A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
symbols (that is the definition of a computer),
I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer. Some have
tried to define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than
a game of symbol manipulation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics)
). But if mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol
manipulation, and everything can be described in terms of
mathematics, then what is not symbol manipulation?
and symbols need a meaning
outside of them to make sense.
The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine
which processes it.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the
UD it
just uses its own memory space.
Is your computer only running one program right now or many?
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only
contains
symbols that are manipulated in a particular way.
You forgot the processes, which are interpreting those symbols.
The spikes of neural activity in your optic nerve are just symbols,
but given an interpreter (your visual cortex and brain) those
symbols become quite meaningful.
The definitions of the UD
or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't
contain a
reference to entities.
The definition of this universe doesn't contain a reference to human
beings either.
So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination.
I think I would still be able to experience meaning even if no one
was looking at me.
It is like 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about putting an apple into a
bowl
with an apple already in it. You can interpret that into it, and its
not
necessarily wrong, but it is not part of the equation.
Similarily you can interpret entities into the UD and that is also not
necessarily wrong, put the entities then still are not part of the UD.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 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.
That's absolutely correct. A human that (tries to) eat all of the
food in
the supermarket is more limited (and dumb) than a human that just
does a
subset of this, picking the food it wants and eat that. The former
human is
dead, or at least will have to visit the hospital, the latter is
well and
alive.
Less is indeed more, in many cases.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
No, not in every way. Yes, in many ways. Computer already have, to
some
degree. If we take IQ as a measure of intelligence, there are already
computers that score better than the vast majority of humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214100719.htm
Interesting. Although my suspicion is they just programmed the http://oeis.org/
database into it, and sorted the sequences by how well known they
were.
Really it is not at all about intelligence in this sense. It is more
about
awareness or universal intelligence.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
Say you have a universal turing machine with the alphabet {0, 1}
The problem is: Change one of the symbols of this turing machine to 2.
Your example is defining a problem to not be solvable by a specific
entity, not turing machines in general. Let's say there were an
android next to this other turing machine with a tape with 1's and
0's on it. The android could write a 2 on it just as easily as any
human could. Now of course the turing machine with the tape might
not lack this capability, but that is a limitation of that
particular incarnation of a Turing machine.
Equivalent example: You may be unable to conduct brain surgery on
yourself, but this does not mean humans (or Turing machines) are
incapable of performing brain surgery.
Given that it is a universal turing machine, it is supposed to be
able to
solve that problem. Yet because it doesn't have access to the right
level,
it cannot do it.
It is an example of direct self-manipulation, which turing machines
are not
capable of (with regards to their alphabet in this case).
Neither can humans change fundamental properties of our physical
incarnation. You can't decide to turn one of your neurons into a
magnetic monopole, for instance, but this is not the kind of problem
I was referring to.
To avoid issues of level confusion, it is better to think of
problems with informational solutions, since information can readily
cross levels. That is, some question is asked and some answer is
provided. Can you think of any question that is only solvable by
human brains, but not solvable by computers?
You could of course create a model of that turing machine within
that turing
machine and change their alphabet in the model, but since this was
not the
problem in question this is not the right solution.
Or the problem "manipulate the code of yourself if you are a
program, solve
1+1 if you are human (computer and human meaning what the average
humans
considers computer and human)" towards a program written in a turing
universal programming language without the ability of self-
modification. The
best it could do is manipulate a model of its own code (but this
wasn't the
problem).
Yet we can simply solve the problem by answering 1+1=2 (since we are
human
and not computers by the opinion of the majority).
These are certainly creative examples, but they are games of
language. I haven't seen any fundamental limitation that can't be
trivially reflected back and applied as an equivalent limitation of
humans.
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
.
--
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
.
