Responding first to Marcus point:
"I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form of
life, but I don’t think there will be a clear connection between how
they think and how humans think. Human culture won’t be important
to how they scale, but may be relevant to a bootstrap."
I believe we are "in transition" toward a more advanced form of life,
though it is hard to demarcate any particular beginning of that
transition. The post/trans-humanists among us often seem to have a
utopian/dystopian urge about all this that I am resistant to. Kotler's
<https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/10960.Steven_Kotler> works
(Abundance, Rise of the Superman, Tomorrowland, Art of the impossible,
etc.) are representative of this genre, but since I know him also to be
a grounded, thoughtful, compassionate person, I try hard to listen
between the lines of what normally reads to me as egoist utopian
fantasy. His works are always well researched and he's fairly good at
being clear what is speculation and what is fact in his
writing/reporting, even though his bias is still a very techno-utopian
optimism.
I really liked Spike Jonze movie "Her"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(film)> as a compassionate-utopian
story of a fairly abrupt AI transition/emergence ... a fantasy by any
measure of course, but an interesting twist on compassionate abandonment
by our "children".
With Glen's re-statements, I found specifically the following:
Simulation in place of Symbols - I don't know all that Marcus intended
or Glen imputes with this but I think it might be very important in some
fundamental way. I wonder at the possibility that this fits into Glen's
stuck-bit about "episodic" vs "diachronic" identity (and experience?) modes.
I haven't been able to parse the following very completely and look
forward to more discussion?
- percolation from concrete, participative, perceptual intuition and
imagination (or perhaps the inverse, a wandering from
abstract/formal *toward* embodiment as we see with the rise of GANs,
zero-shot, and online learning AI)
and in fact, all of these as well... good stuff.
- a more heterarchical, high-dimensional, or high-order
understanding of "fitness costs" - fitness of fitnesses
- holes or dense regions in a taxonomy of SAMs - including my
favorite: cross-species mind-reading
- game-theoretic (infinite and meta-gaming) logics of cognition
(including simulation of simulation and fitness of fitnesses)
I introduced "deictec error" because I think it is maybe core to *my*
struggles with this whole topic, so I'm glad Glen referenced it, and
also look forward to possibly more discussion of that in regard to the rest.
- Steve
On 9/16/22 10:25 AM, glen∉ℂ wrote:
I do see us trying to identify the distinguishing markers of ...
"cognition we can't imagine". That's fantastic. I'll try to collate
some of them going backwards from Marcus':
- novelty - dissimilarity from "cognition as we know it"
- graded separation from human culture/sociality
- simulation in place of symbols (I failed to come up with a better
phrase)
- accelerated look-ahead
- percolation from concrete, participative, perceptual intuition and
imagination (or perhaps the inverse, a wandering from abstract/formal
*toward* embodiment as we see with the rise of GANs, zero-shot, and
online learning AI)
- a more heterarchical, high-dimensional, or high-order understanding
of "fitness costs" - fitness of fitnesses
- holes or dense regions in a taxonomy of SAMs - including my
favorite: cross-species mind-reading
- game-theoretic (infinite and meta-gaming) logics of cognition
(including simulation of simulation and fitness of fitnesses)
It seems like all these are attempts to at least circumscribe what we
can know about what we can imagine. And if so, it's like a convex hull
beyond which is what we can't imagine. I wanted to place "deictic
error" in there. But it seems to apply to several of the other
categories. In particular, part of Dave and SteveS' irritation with
the arrogance of abstraction is that symbols only ever *hook* to their
groundings. Logics over those symbols may or may not preserve the
grounding. Like the rather obvious idiocy of classical logic
suggesting that anything can be concluded from inconsistent premises.
When/if an entity can fully replace all shunted/truncated symbols with
(perhaps participatory) simulations, it might reach the tight coupling
with the simulated (possible) worlds in the same way Dave implies we
couple tightly (concretely) with our (actual) world.
On 9/15/22 21:16, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form of
life, but I don’t think there will be a clear connection between how
they think and how humans think. Human culture won’t be important to
how they scale, but may be relevant to a bootstrap. I would be
surprised if compression, deconstruction, and reductionism went
unused by this species. I would be surprised if such a species would
struggle with quantification. I would also be surprised if they did
not use simulation in place of symbols. I think they will have
dreams of entire human lives, of the rise and fall of nations, and
regard our aspirations like I regard my dog dreaming of her
encounters at the park.
On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:11 PM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Just to be clear, I have zero antipathy towards Wolpert or his
efforts at steelmanning. I think Wolpert does an excellent job of
phrasing as questions what I perceive "Scientists" and
"Computationalists" to merely assert as Truth. I have long tilted at
that particular windmill and I applaud Wolpert, and glen for
bringing him to our attention, for exposing the assertions such that
counter arguments might be made.
And when it comes to "computationalism" and AI; I know it is not the
1970s and things have "advanced" significantly. And although I do
not comprehend the details as well as most of you, I do understand
sufficiently, I believe, to advance the claim that they are
suffering from the exact same blind spot (with variable details) as
Simon and Newell, et. al. who championed GOFAI. Plus you all have
heard of Simon and Newell but most of you are unfamiliar with
McGilchrist and similar contemporary critics.
My antipathy toward "Scientists" and "Computationalists" arises from
what I perceive as an absolute refusal to credit any science, math,
or ways/means of acquiring/expressing knowledge and understanding
other than theirs. Dismissing neolithic and pre-modern science is
one example. Failing to acknowledge the intelligence (and probably
SAM) of other species—especially octopi—simply because they do not
build atomic bombs or computers, is another.
A really good book that would inform a discussion of Wolpert's
questions, #4 in particular, is: /Other Minds: The Octopus, the sea,
and the deep origins of consciousness/, by Peter Godfrey-Smith. A
blurb follows.
/Although mammals and birds are widely regarded as the smartest
creatures on earth, it has lately become clear that a very distant
branch of the tree of life has also sprouted higher intelligence:
the cephalopods, consisting of the squid, the cuttlefish, and above
all the octopus. In captivity, octopuses have been known to identify
individual human keepers, raid neighboring tanks for food, turn off
light bulbs by spouting jets of water, plug drains, and make daring
escapes. How is it that a creature with such gifts evolved through
an evolutionary lineage so radically distant from our own? What does
it mean that evolution built minds not once but at least twice? The
octopus is the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.
What can we learn from the encounter? /
davew
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>There is some kind of diectic error in our response.
>
> Korrekshun - "deictic"
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/