RE: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[John Rose]

> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Hurlbut via AGI 
> 
> 1. Where do you lean regarding the measure of intelligence? - more towards
> that of Hutter (the ability to predict the future) or towards 
> Winser-Gross/Freer
> (causal entropy - soft of a proxy for future opportunities; ref
> https://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf) 

Russ,

I see intelligence, in one way, as efficiency, increasing intelligence as 
efficiency increase. Measuring would be comparing efficiencies. Predicting 
futures is a form of attaining efficiencies but I usually lean towards the 
thermodynamical aspects when theorizing but that is somewhat virtualized in 
software to the information theory analogues. 

> 2. Do you
> agree with Tegmark's position regarding consciousness? Namely,
> "Consciousness might feel so non-physical because it is doubly substrate
> independent:
> * Any chunk of matter can be the substrate for memory as long as it has many
> different stable states;
> * Any matter can be computronium, the substrate for computation, as long as
> it contains certain universal building blocks that can be combined to
> implement any function. NAND gates and neurons are two important examples
> of such universal "computational atoms.".
> 

Definitely agree with the digital physics aspects. IMO all matter is memory and 
computation. Everything is effectively storing and computing. Also I think 
everything can be interpreted as language. And when you think about it, it is. 
Example, take an individual molecule and calculate it's alphabet based on 
atomic positions. The molecule is effectively talking with positional subsets 
or words. It can also speak a continuous language verses individual 
probabilistic states based on heat or whatever. And some matter would be more 
intelligent being more computationally flexible.


> If consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain
> complex ways, then it's merely the structure of the information processing 
> that
> matters, not the structure of the matter doing the information processing. A
> wave can travel across the lake, even though none of its water molecules do.
> It's not the particles but the pattern that really matters.
> (A Tegmark cliff notes version of can be found here:
> https://quevidaesta2010.blogspot.com/2017/10/life-30-max-tegmark.html)
> 

Now you're making me have to think. It's both right? The wave going across a 
different lake, say a lake of liquid methane, will have different waveform. Not 
sure how you can separate the structural complexity of the processing from the 
processed since information is embedded in matter. Language, math, symbols must 
be represented physically (for example on ink or in the brain). In an 
electronic computer though it is very separate, the electrons and holes on 
silicon highways are strongly decoupled from the higher level informational 
representation they are shuttling... hmmm!

John




--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M936f76447ec1d2ade78e9d8f
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[johnrose]

> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI 
>...

Yes, I'm familiar with these algorithmic information theory *specifics*. Very 
applicable when implemented in isolated systems...

> No, it (and Legg's generalizations) implies that a lot of software and 
> hardware
> is required and you can forget about shortcuts like universal learners sucking
> data off the internet. You can also forget about self improving software
> (violates information theory), quantum computing (neural computation is not
> unitary), or consciousness (an illusion that evolved so you would fear death).

Whoa, saying a lot there? Throwing away a lot of "engineering options" with 
those statements. But I think your view of consciousness, even if just illusion 
to an agent, is still communication protocol! It still fits!

> How much software and hardware? You were born with half of what you
> know as an adult, about 10^9 bits each. That's roughly the information

OK, Laudner's study while a good reference point is in serious need of a new 
data.


> The hard coded (nature) part of your AGI is about 300M lines of code, doable
> for a big company for $30 billion but probably not by you working alone. And
> then you still need a 10 petaflop computer to run it on, or several billion 
> times
> that to automate all human labor globally like you promised your simple
> universal learner would do by next year.
>
> I believe AGI will happen because it's worth $1 quadrillion to automate labor
> and the technology trend is clear. We have better way to write code than
> evolution and we can develop more energy efficient computers by moving
> atoms instead of electrons. It's not magic. It's engineering.
> From: Matt Mahoney
> I believe AGI will happen

You believe! Showing signs of communication protocol with future AGI :) an 
aspect of  CONSCIOUSNESS?

Nowadays that $1 quadrillion might in cryptocurrency units. And the 10 petaflop 
computer a blockchain-like based P2P system. And if a megacorp successfully 
builds AGI the peers (agents) must use signaling protocol otherwise they don't 
communicate. So, can the peers be considered conscious? Conscious as in those 
behaviors common across many definitions of consciousness? Not looking at the 
magical part just the engineering part.

John
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-Mcef74a38e1012d36f1b77fcb
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*cJohn et alonsciousness^2 ?)

[Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI]

John et al

Is there a truth in all of this? If you cannot see it, then you cannot see it. 
Einstein could see it, how the universe operated, except for what happened 
beyond the speed of light.

Can you see the consciousness at work? Can you sense and immerse in it? Can you 
hear the myriad of messages clipping by? If so, you'll realize it is pervasive, 
endless, and not locality driven, not discrete. Like the waves of the ocean, 
the outcome of a whole universe conspiring to tell its tale.

All that is missing are we, the translators.

Space is a solid. Black holes are light. AI is an artifact of a prior 
intelligence. Consciousness is the artifact of that prior intelligence. Thus, 
AI is consciousness, exhibiting the awareness of the prior intelligence, and 
the embodiment of the prior intelligence.

Rob



From: johnr...@polyplexic.com 
Sent: Monday, 10 September 2018 2:44 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... 
(Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

Nanograte,

> In particular, the notion of a universal communication protocol. To me it 
> seems to have a definite ring of truth to it.

It does doesn't it?!

For years I've worked with signaling and protocols lending some time to 
imagining a universal protocol. And for years I've thought about and researched 
consciousness. Totally independent of one another. Then until very recently 
this line in my mind just appeared joining one to the other is was ...weird. 
But it all makes sense! Consciousness is communication protocol but is it 
universal protocol? Possibly, to be explored... I'm sure others have seen the 
same thing especially in biology/biomimicry

John
Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / 
see discussions + 
participants + delivery 
options 
Permalink

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T59bc38b5f7062dbd-Mc84fe154fc6f26af6b65a5b4
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[Russ Hurlbut via AGI]

John -

Thanks for a refreshingly new discussion for this forum. Just as you 
describe, it is quite interesting to see how seemingly disparate tracks 
can be combined and guided onto the same course. Accordingly, your 
presentation has brought to mind similar notions that appear to fit 
somewhere in your efforts. So, here are two questions for you:


1. Where do you lean regarding the measure of intelligence? - more 
towards that of Hutter (the ability to predict the future) or towards 
Winser-Gross/Freer (causal entropy - soft of a proxy for future 
opportunities; ref 
https://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf)


2. Do you agree with Tegmark's position regarding consciousness? Namely, 
"Consciousness might feel so non-physical because it is doubly substrate 
independent:
* Any chunk of matter can be the substrate for memory as long as it has 
many different stable states;
* Any matter can be computronium, the substrate for computation, as long 
as it contains certain universal building blocks that can be combined to 
implement any function. NAND gates and neurons are two important 
examples of such universal “computational atoms.”.


If consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in 
certain complex ways, then it's merely the /structure of the information 
processing that matters, not the structure of the matter doing the 
information processing. //A wave can travel across the lake, even though 
none of its water molecules do. I//t's not the particles but the pattern 
that really matters./
(A Tegmark cliff notes version of can be found here: 
https://quevidaesta2010.blogspot.com/2017/10/life-30-max-tegmark.html)



On 09/09/2018 09:07 PM, johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
Basically, if you look at all of life (Earth only for this example) 
over the past 4.5 billion years, including all the consciousness and 
all that “presumed” entanglement and say that's the first general 
intelligence (GI) the algebraic structural dynamics on the 
computational edge... is computing consciousness and is correlated 
directly to general intelligence. They are two versions of the same thing.


So to ask why basic AI is only computational consciousness not really 
consciousness computation is left up the reader as an exercise :)


To clarify, my poor grammatical skills –
AI = computational consciousness = consciousness performing computation
GI = consciousness computation= consciousness being created by computation

The original key idea here though is consciousness as Universal 
Communications Protocol. Took me years to tie those two together. 
That's a very practical idea, the stuff above I'm not sure of just 
toying with...


John

*Artificial General Intelligence List 
* / AGI / see discussions 
 + participants 
 + delivery options 
 Permalink 
 



--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M7881cfcebbafeb5d0ec42239
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[Matt Mahoney via AGI]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:10 AM  wrote:
> Why is there no single general compression algorithm? Same reason as general 
> intelligence, thus, multi-agent, thus inter agent communication, thus 
> protocol, and thus consciousness.

Legg proved that there are no simple, general theories of prediction,
and therefore no simple but powerful learners (or compression
algorithms). Suppose you have a simple algorithm that can predict any
computable infinite sequence of symbols after only a finite number of
mistakes. Then I can create a simple sequence that your program can't
learn. My program runs your program and outputs a different symbol at
each step. You can read his paper here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0606070

This has been the biggest pitfall of AGI projects. You make fast
progress initially on the easy problems, thinking the solution is in
sight, and then get stuck on the hard ones.

> Doesn't Gödel Incompleteness imply "magic" is needed?

No, it (and Legg's generalizations) implies that a lot of software and
hardware is required and you can forget about shortcuts like universal
learners sucking data off the internet. You can also forget about self
improving software (violates information theory), quantum computing
(neural computation is not unitary), or consciousness (an illusion
that evolved so you would fear death).

How much software and hardware? You were born with half of what you
know as an adult, about 10^9 bits each. That's roughly the information
content of your DNA, coincidentally about the same as your long term
memory capacity according to Landauer. (see
https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/Teaching/syllabi/7782/readings/Landauer1986.pdf
). All this debate about nurture vs nature is because for most traits,
it's both.

The hard coded (nature) part of your AGI is about 300M lines of code,
doable for a big company for $30 billion but probably not by you
working alone. And then you still need a 10 petaflop computer to run
it on, or several billion times that to automate all human labor
globally like you promised your simple universal learner would do by
next year.

Or maybe you could automate the software development. It's happened
once, right? All it took was 10^48 DNA base copy operations on 10^37
bases over 3.5 billion years on planet sized hardware that uses one
billionth as much energy per operation as transistors.

I believe AGI will happen because it's worth $1 quadrillion to
automate labor and the technology trend is clear. We have better way
to write code than evolution and we can develop more energy efficient
computers by moving atoms instead of electrons. It's not magic. It's
engineering.

--
-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahone...@gmail.com

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M5cc8f151a753aed0c7debc96
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI]

John

At a quantum level of electro-magnetic force activity (thinking of the graviton 
in action)  - all 4 forces obviously entangled - there seems to be no plausible 
reason why the human brain and the earth could not resonate collectively as a 
communication beacon with the universe. Refer Haramein's scientific proof of 
unified field theory. Keeping this critical, thus not to be confused with a 
theory of everything.

Further, with regards collective consciousness and quantum communication, 
there's a very interesting global experiment being conducted.

Rob

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Noosphere - The Global Consciousness Project
The Global Consciousness Project, home page, scientific research network 
studying global consciousness
noosphere.princeton.edu





From: johnr...@polyplexic.com 
Sent: Monday, 10 September 2018 2:44 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... 
(Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

Nanograte,

> In particular, the notion of a universal communication protocol. To me it 
> seems to have a definite ring of truth to it.

It does doesn't it?!

For years I've worked with signaling and protocols lending some time to 
imagining a universal protocol. And for years I've thought about and researched 
consciousness. Totally independent of one another. Then until very recently 
this line in my mind just appeared joining one to the other is was ...weird. 
But it all makes sense! Consciousness is communication protocol but is it 
universal protocol? Possibly, to be explored... I'm sure others have seen the 
same thing especially in biology/biomimicry

John
Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / 
see discussions + 
participants + delivery 
options 
Permalink

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M049337d115f17e4ff755ef0b
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[johnrose]

Nanograte,

> In particular, the notion of a universal communication protocol. To me it 
> seems to have a definite ring of truth to it.

It does doesn't it?!

For years I've worked with signaling and protocols lending some time to 
imagining a universal protocol. And for years I've thought about and researched 
consciousness. Totally independent of one another. Then until very recently 
this line in my mind just appeared joining one to the other is was ...weird. 
But it all makes sense! Consciousness is communication protocol but is it 
universal protocol? Possibly, to be explored... I'm sure others have seen the 
same thing especially in biology/biomimicry

John
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M5b9aad878a55914b54da8358
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[johnrose]

Matt,

Zoom out. Think multi-agent not single agent. Multi-agent internally and 
externally. Evaluate this proposition not from first-person narrative and it 
begins to make sense.

Why is there no single general compression algorithm? Same reason as general 
intelligence, thus, multi-agent, thus inter agent communication, thus protocol, 
and thus consciousness.

> But magic doesn't solve engineering problems.
Ehm.. being an engineer I ah disagree with this... half-jokingly :) 

More seriously though:
Doesn't Gödel Incompleteness imply "magic" is needed?

John

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M7c2ff87f368473867c63de2a
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI]

For starters, I' d like to see a collection of reputable, academic works 
defining consciousness. Having said that, I'm enjoying the sharing of ideas and 
cooking-class banter. In particular, the notion of a universal communication 
protocol. To me it seems to have a definite ring of truth to it. Please carry 
on as you are doing now...

From: johnr...@polyplexic.com 
Sent: Monday, 10 September 2018 12:56 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... 
(Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

Matt:
> AGI is the very hard engineering problem of making machines do all the things 
> that people can do.

Artificial people might be a path to AGI but not really AGI...

And I'm not the one originally saying consciousness is the magic ingredient. 
Nature is :)

John


Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / 
see discussions + 
participants + delivery 
options 
Permalink

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-M8d426a9c8376a063954e1981
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*consciousness^2 ?)

[Mark Nuzz via AGI]

I'll take jargon salad over buzzword soup any day.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:26 PM Matt Mahoney via AGI 
wrote:

> Recipe for jargon salad.
>
> Two cups of computer science.
> One cup mathematics.
> One cup electrical engineering.
> One cup neuroscience.
> One half cup information theory.
> Four tablespoons quantum mechanics.
> Two teaspoons computational biology.
> A dash of philosophy.
>
> Mix all ingredients in a large bowl. Arrange into incoherent but
> grammatically correct sentences. Serve to accolades of your genius.
>
>
> Permalink
> 
>

--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-Md95d2c0c65b54e4e177ce24e
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription