[agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
To all, I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name and number. The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing into: 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of resolving otherwise intractable disputes. 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into slavery, etc., etc. 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this test. This statement would be included on the license. This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are dealing with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal insanity. Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. Thanks Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Hi Steve I am not an expert so correct me if I am wrong. As I see it every day logical arguments (and rationality?) are based on standard classical logic (or something very similar). Yet I am (sadly) not aware of a convincing argument that this logic is the one to accept as the right choice. You might know that e.g. intuitionistic logic limits the power of reductio ad absurdum to negative statements (I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a precise counterexample, but I think you get my point). Would this not make you hesitate? If not, why? Cheers, Martin Biehl 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To all, I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name and number. The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing into: 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of resolving otherwise intractable disputes. 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into slavery, etc., etc. 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this test. This statement would be included on the license. This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are dealing with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal insanity. Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. Thanks Steve Richfield -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction
From: Trent Waddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it is stuck in the eye with a needle (the standard way to draw blood) even though it squirms just like a human would. It is surprisingly easy to modify one's ethics to feel this way, as proven by the Milgram experiments and Nazi war crime trials. I'm sure you're not meaning to suggest that scientists commonly rationalize in this way, nor that they are all Nazi war criminals for experimenting on animals. I feel the need to remind people that animal rights is a fringe movement that does not represent the views of the majority. We experiment on animals because the benefits, to humans, are considered worthwhile. I like animals. And I like the idea of coming up with cures to diseases and testing them on animals first. In college my biologist roommate protested the torture of fruit flies. My son has starting playing video games where you shoot, zapp and chemically immolate the opponent, so I need to explain to him that those bad guys are not conscious...yet. I don't know if there are guidelines. Humans, being the rulers of planet, appear as godlike beings to other conscious inhabitants. That brings responsibility. So when we start coming up with AI stuff in the lab that attains certain levels of consciousness we have to know what consciousness is in order to govern our behavior. And naturally if some superintelligent space alien or rogue interstellar AI encounters us and decides that we are a culinary delicacy and wants to grow us enmass economically, we hope that some respect is given eh? Reminds me of hearing that some farms are experimenting with growing chickens w/o heads. Animal rights may be more than just a fringe movement. Kind of like Mike - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
2008/11/18 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. This all sounds peachy in principle, but I expect it would exclude virtually everyone except perhaps a few of the most diehard philosophers. I think most people have at least a few beliefs which cannot be strictly justified rationally, and that would include many AI researchers. Irrational or inconsistent beliefs originate from being an entity with finite resources - finite experience and finite processing power and time with which to analyze the data. Many people use quick lookups handed to them by individuals considered to be of higher social status, principally because they don't have time or inclination to investigate the issues directly themselves. In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. - Mark Twain --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most people have at least a few beliefs which cannot be strictly justified rationally You would think that. :) Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Now hear this: Human qualia are generated in the human cranial CNS and no place else
Colin, May I suggest if you want clarity you dispense with eccentric philosophical terms like p-consciousness (phenomenal consciousness?) The phantom limb case you bring up is interesting but first I have to understand what you're talking about. Would you mind sticking to simple, basic (and scientific) words like sensation/emotion/ consciousness and restate your position? Colin/Mike Tintner wrote: Colin:YESBrains don't have their own sensors or self-represent with a perceptual field. So what? That's got nothing whatever to do with the matter at hand. CUT cortex and you can kill off what it is like percepts out there in the body (although in confusing ways). Touch appropriate exposed cortex with a non-invasive probe and you can create percepts apparently, but not actually, elsewhere in the body. Cut off your sensors and your body -remove the body from the brain - and you also don't have any form of consciousness or sensation - contrary to the brain-in-a-vat delusion. However if you remove the brain entirely - from an evolutionary perspective - you still have consciousness. Living organisms clearly had and have intelligence *before* the brain was evolved - *before* intelligence was centralised in one area of the body. Intelligence was clearly at first *distributed* through a proto-nervous system throughout the body. Watch a sea anemone wait and then grab, and then devour a fish that approaches it and you will be convinced of that. The anemone does not have a brain only a nervous system. You are trying to locate consciousness in one area of the body rather than in the brain-body as a whole. It's clearly wrong. You - your self - and your consciousness - are a whole body affair. Understanding this is vital not only for understanding consciousness but also general intelligence and creativity, as I have dealt with elsewhere I'm talking about human P-consciousness[1] specifically. I'm not talking about its role in intelligence or the P-consciousness or otherwise in any other context like an invertebrate. I just want to make sure everyone's on the same physiological page for human level AGI. Yes, the normal circumstances are that P-consciousness arises in brain-body as a whole. But pathological circumstances are very telling. Phantom limb is where you could have, say, have a perceptual arm 'out there' in space in a really agonising contorted way, but there's no actual arm. MaleFemale sex changes can produce phantom penises etc. this is P-consciousness of body without body part. The fact that P-consciousness occurs in any particular embodiment circumstance or intellectual capacity does not alter the empirical fact of the localisation of the origin of the sensations in humans to the cranial CNS of the human. Very specific localised cranial (not spinal) central nervous system (CNS) neurons go to a great deal of trouble to construct the P-conscious scenes. The peripheral nervous system (PNS) and the spinal CNS are 100% sensationless, including all cranial peripherals. That's the main outcome. If there is anyone out there that thinks that merely hooking up a sensor to a computer intrinsically creates a percept or a sensation - that is fundamentally erroneous. That includes a camera chip or any other peripheral. I have actually met a senior AI worker with that delusion installed in his mental kit. He didn't like being told about the atomic level reality. I'd like to dispel all such delusion in this place so that neurally inspired AGI gets discussed accurately, even if your intent is to explain P-consciousness away... know exactly what you are explaining away and exactly where it is. cheers, Colin Hales [1] Block, N. (1995), 'On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18(2):pp. 227-247. -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have just hit my Do not bother debating with list. You can decide anything you like -- but that doesn't make it true. - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: RE: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, it is not clear people are free to decide what makes pain real, at least subjectively real. I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it is stuck in the eye with a needle (the standard way to draw blood) even though it squirms just like a human would. It is surprisingly easy to modify one's ethics to feel this way, as proven by the Milgram experiments and Nazi war crime trials. If we have anything close to the advances in brain scanning and brain science that Kurzweil predicts 1, we should come to understand the correlates of consciousness quite well No. I used examples like autobliss ( http://www.mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt ) and the roundworm c. elegans as examples of simple systems whose functions are completely understood, yet the question of whether such systems experience pain remains a philosophical question that cannot be answered by experiment. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] AGI Light Humor - first words
First words to come from the brand new AGI? Hello World or Gotta paper clip? What's the meaning of life? Am I really conscious? Where am I? I come from a dysfunctional family. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this test. This statement would be included on the license. Hmmm... don't I fail this test every time I follow the speed limit ? ;-) As another aside, it seems wrong to accuse Buddhists of condoning violence because they don't like MAD (which involves stockpiling nukes) ... you could accuse them of foolishness perhaps (though I don't necessarily agree) but not of condoning violence My feeling is that with such a group of intelligent and individualistic folks as transhumanists and AI researchers are, any litmus test for cognitive sanity you come up with is gonna be quickly revealed to be full of loopholes that lead to endless philosophical discussions... so that in the end, such a test could only be used as a general guide, with the ultimate cognitive-sanity-test to be made on a qualitative basis In a small project like Novamente, we can evaluate each participant individually to assess their thought process and background. In a larger project like OpenCog, there is not much control over who gets involved, but making people sign a form promising to be rational and cognitively sane wouldn't seem to help much, as obviously there is nothing forcing people to be honest... ben g --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Now hear this: Human qualia are generated in the human cranial CNS and no place else
Colin Hales wrote: Mike Tintner wrote: Colin:Qualia generation has been highly localised into specific regions in *cranial *brain material already. Qualia are not in the periphery. Qualia are not in the spinal CNS, Qualia are not in the cranial periphery eg eyes or lips Colin, This is to a great extent nonsense. Which sensation/emotion - (qualia is a word strictly for philosophers not scientists, I suggest) - is not located in the body? When you are angry, you never frown or bite or tense your lips? The brain helps to generate the emotion - (and note helps). But emotions are bodily events - and *felt* bodily. This whole discussion ignores the primary paradox about consciousness, (which is first and foremost sentience) : *the brain doesn't feel a thing* - sentience/feeling is located in the body outside the brain. When a surgeon cuts your brain, you feel nothing. You feel and are conscious of your emotions in and with your whole body. I am talking about the known, real actual origins of *all* phenomenal fields. This is anatomical/physiological fact for 150 years. You don't see with your eyes. You don't feel with your skin. Vision is in the occipital cortex. The eyes provide data. Skin provides the data, CNS somatosensory field delivers the experience of touch and projects it to the skin region. ALL perceptions, BAR NONE, including all emotions, imagination, everything - ALL of it is actually generated in cranial CNS. Perceptual fields are projected from the CNS to appear AS-IF they originate in the periphery. The sensory measurements themselves convey no sensations at all. I could give you libraries of data. Ask all doctors. They specifically call NOCICEPTION the peripheral sensor and PAIN the CNS (basal...inferior colliculus or was it cingulate...can't remember exactly) percept. Pain in your back? NOPE. Pain is in the CNS and projected (Badly) to the location of your back, like a periscope-view. Pain in your gut? NOPE. You have nociceptors in the myenetric/submucosal plexuses that convey data to the CNS which generates PAIN and projects it at the gut. Feel sad? Your laterally offset amygdala create an omnidirectional percept centered on your medial cranium region. etc etc etc etc YESBrains don't have their own sensors or self-represent with a perceptual field. So what? That's got nothing whatever to do with the matter at hand. CUT cortex and you can kill off what it is like percepts out there in the body (although in confusing ways). Touch appropriate exposed cortex with a non-invasive probe and you can create percepts apparently, but not actually, elsewhere in the body. The entire neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) paradigm is dedicated to exploring CNS neurons for correlates of qualia. NOT peripheral neurons. Nobody anywhere else in the world thinks that sensation is generated in the periphery. The *CNS* paints your world with qualia-paint in a projected picture constructed in the CNS using sensationless data from the periphery. Please internalise this brute fact. I didn't invent it or simply choose to believe it because it was convenient. I read the literature. It told me. It's there to be learned. Lots of people have been doing conclusive, real physiology for a very long time. Be empirically informed: Believe them. Or, if you are still convinced it's nonsense then tell them, not me. They'd love to hear your evidence and you'll get a nobel prize for an amazing about-turn in medical knowledge. :-) This has been known, apparently perhaps by everybody but computer scientists, for 150 years.Can I consider this a general broadcast once and for all? I don't ever want to have to pump this out again. Life is too short. Yes, although it might be more accurate to say that this is the last known place where you can catch the sensory percepts as single, identifiable things I don't think it would really be fair to say that this place is the origin of them. So, for example: - If you cover a sheet of red paper you happen to be looking at, the red qualia disappear. - If instead you knock out the cones that pick up red light in the eye, then the red qualia disappear. - If you take out the ganglion cells attached to the red cones in the retina, the red qualia disappear. - If you keep doing this at any point between there and area 17 (the visual cortex), you can get the red qualia to disappear. But after that, there is no single place you can cut off the percept with one single piece of intervention. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Steve Richfield wrote: To all, I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name and number. The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing into: 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of resolving otherwise intractable disputes. 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into slavery, etc., etc. 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this test. This statement would be included on the license. This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are dealing with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal insanity. Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. Thanks Steve Richfield I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. 8-| Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
Richard Loosemore wrote: Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be found at: http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf One other point: Although this is a possible explanation for our subjective experience of qualia like red or soft, I don't see it explaining pain or happy quite so easily. You can hypothesize a sort of mechanism-level explanation of those by relegating them to the older or lower parts of the brain (i.e., they're atomic at the conscious level, but have more effects at the physiological level (like releasing chemicals into the system)), but that doesn't satisfactorily cover the subjective side for me. I do have a quick answer to that one. Remember that the core of the model is the *scope* of the analysis mechanism. If there is a sharp boundary (as well there might be), then this defines the point where the qualia kick in. Pain receptors are fairly easy: they are primitive signal lines. Emotions are, I believe, caused by clusters of lower brain structures, so the interface between lower brain and foreground is the place where the foreground sees a limit to the analysis mechanisms. More generally, the significance of the foreground is that it sets a boundary on how far the analysis mechanisms can reach. I am not sure why that would seem less satisfactory as an explanation of the subjectivity. It is a raw feel, and that is the key idea, no? My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Trent Waddington wrote: As I believe the is that conciousness? debate could go on forever, I think I should make an effort here to save this thread. Setting aside the objections of vegetarians and animal lovers, many hard nosed scientists decided long ago that jamming things into the brains of monkeys and the like is justifiable treatment of creatures suspected by many to have similar experiences to humans. If you're in agreement with these practices then I think you should be in agreement with any and all experimentation on simulated networks of complexity up to and including these organisms. Yes, my intent on starting this thread was not to define consciousness, but rather to ask how do we make ethical choices with regard to AGI before we are able to define it? I agree with your points above. However, I am not entirely sanguine about animal experiments. I accept that they're sometimes OK, or at least the lesser of two evils, but I would prefer to avoid even that level of compromise when experimenting on AGIs. And, given that we have the ability to design the AGI experimental subject -- as opposed to being stuck with a pre-designed animal -- it /should/ be possible. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. Maybe I missed it but why do you assume that because qualia are atomic that they have no differentiable details? Evolution is, quite correctly, going to give pain qualia higher priority and less ability to be shut down than red qualia. In a good representation system, that means that searing hot is going to be *very* whatever and very tough to ignore. - Original Message - From: Harry Chesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness Richard Loosemore wrote: Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be found at: http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf One other point: Although this is a possible explanation for our subjective experience of qualia like red or soft, I don't see it explaining pain or happy quite so easily. You can hypothesize a sort of mechanism-level explanation of those by relegating them to the older or lower parts of the brain (i.e., they're atomic at the conscious level, but have more effects at the physiological level (like releasing chemicals into the system)), but that doesn't satisfactorily cover the subjective side for me. I do have a quick answer to that one. Remember that the core of the model is the *scope* of the analysis mechanism. If there is a sharp boundary (as well there might be), then this defines the point where the qualia kick in. Pain receptors are fairly easy: they are primitive signal lines. Emotions are, I believe, caused by clusters of lower brain structures, so the interface between lower brain and foreground is the place where the foreground sees a limit to the analysis mechanisms. More generally, the significance of the foreground is that it sets a boundary on how far the analysis mechanisms can reach. I am not sure why that would seem less satisfactory as an explanation of the subjectivity. It is a raw feel, and that is the key idea, no? My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Now hear this: Human qualia are generated in the human cranial CNS and no place else
Trent Waddington wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to dispel all such delusion in this place so that neurally inspired AGI gets discussed accurately, even if your intent is to explain P-consciousness away... know exactly what you are explaining away and exactly where it is. Could you be any more arrogant? Could you try for me, cause I think you're almost there, and with a little training, you could get some kind of award. Trent It's a gift. :-) However I think I might have max'ed out. Some people would call is saying it the way it is. As I get older/grumpier I find I have less time for treading preciously around the in garden of the mental darlings to get at the weeds. I also like to be told bluntly, like you did. Time is short. You'll be free of my swathe for a while...work is piling up again. cheers colin --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Neurogenesis critical to mammalian learning and memory?
.. interesting if true .. http://www.medindia.net/news/Key-to-Learning-and-Memory-Continuous-Brain-Cell-Generation-41297-1.htm -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
Mark Waser wrote: My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. Maybe I missed it but why do you assume that because qualia are atomic that they have no differentiable details? Evolution is, quite correctly, going to give pain qualia higher priority and less ability to be shut down than red qualia. In a good representation system, that means that searing hot is going to be *very* whatever and very tough to ignore. I thought that was the meaning of atomic as used in the paper. Maybe I got it wrong. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have just hit my Do not bother debating with list. You can decide anything you like -- but that doesn't make it true. Aren't you the one who decided that autobliss feels pain? Or did you decide that it doesn't? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be found at: http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf One other point: Although this is a possible explanation for our subjective experience of qualia like red or soft, I don't see it explaining pain or happy quite so easily. You can hypothesize a sort of mechanism-level explanation of those by relegating them to the older or lower parts of the brain (i.e., they're atomic at the conscious level, but have more effects at the physiological level (like releasing chemicals into the system)), but that doesn't satisfactorily cover the subjective side for me. I do have a quick answer to that one. Remember that the core of the model is the *scope* of the analysis mechanism. If there is a sharp boundary (as well there might be), then this defines the point where the qualia kick in. Pain receptors are fairly easy: they are primitive signal lines. Emotions are, I believe, caused by clusters of lower brain structures, so the interface between lower brain and foreground is the place where the foreground sees a limit to the analysis mechanisms. More generally, the significance of the foreground is that it sets a boundary on how far the analysis mechanisms can reach. I am not sure why that would seem less satisfactory as an explanation of the subjectivity. It is a raw feel, and that is the key idea, no? My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. There is more than one question wrapped up inside this question, I think. First: all qualia feel different, of course. You seem to be pointing to a sense in which pain is more different than most ? But is that really a valid idea? Does pain have differentiable details? Well, there are different types of pain but that is to be expected, like different colors. But that is arelatively trivial point. Within one single pain there can be several *effects* of that pain, including some strange ones that do not have counterparts in the vision-color case. For example, suppose that a searing hot pain caused a simultaneous triggering of the motivational system, forcing you to suddenly want to do something (like pulling your body part away from the pain). The feeling of wanting (wanting to pull away) is a quale of its own, in a sense, so it would not be impossible for one quale (searing hot) to always be associated with another (wanting to pull away). If those always occurred together, it might seem that there was structure to the pain experience, where in fact there is a pair of things happening. It is probably more than a pair of things, but perhaps you get my drift. Remember that having associations to a pain is not part of what we consider to be the essence of the subjective experience; the bit that is most mysterious and needs to be explained. Another thing we have to keep in mind here is that the exact details of how each subjective experience feels are certainly going to seem different, and some can seem like each other and not like others colors are like other colors, but not like pains. That is to be expected: we can say that colors happen in a certain place in our sensorium (vision) while pains are associated with the body (usually), but these differences are not inconsistent with the account I have given. If concept-atoms encoding [red] always attach to all the othe concept-atoms involving visual experiences, that would make them very different than pains like [searing hot], but all of this could be true at the same time that [red] would do what it does to the analysis mechanism (when we try to think the thought Was is the essence of redness?). So the problem with the analysis mechanism would happen with both pains and colors, even though the two different atom types played games with different sets of other concept-atoms. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Martin, On 11/18/08, martin biehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a precise counterexample, but I think you get my point. HERE is the crux of my argument, as other forms of logic fall short of being adequate to run a world with. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum is the first logical tool with the promise to resolve most intractable disputes, ranging from the abortion debate to the middle east problem. Some people get it easily, and some require long discussions, so I'll post the Cliff Notes version here, and if you want it in smaller doses, just send me an off-line email and we can talk on the phone. Reductio ad absurdum has worked unerringly for centuries to test bad assumptions. This constitutes a proof by lack of counterexample that the ONLY way to reach an absurd result is by a bad assumption, as otherwise, reductio ad absurdum would sometimes fail. Hence, when two intelligent people reach conflicting conclusions, but neither can see any errors in the other's logic, it would seem that they absolutely MUST have at least one bad assumption. Starting from the absurdity and searching for the assumption is where the reverse in reverse reductio ad absurdum comes in. If their false assumptions were different, than one or both parties would quickly discover them in discussion. However, when the argument stays on the surface, the ONLY place remaining to hide an invalid assumption is that they absolutely MUSH share the SAME invalid assumptions. Of course if our superintelligent AGI approaches them and points out their shared invalid assumption, then they would probably BOTH attack the AGI, as their invalid assumption may be their only point of connection. It appears that breaking this deadlock absolutely must involve first teaching both parties what reverse reductio ad absurdum is all about, as I am doing here. For example, take the abortion debate. It is obviously crazy to be making and killing babies, and it is a proven social disaster to make this illegal - an obvious reverse reductio ad absurdum situation. OK, so lets look at societies where abortion is no issue at all, e.g. Muslim societies, where it is freely available, but no one gets them. There, children are treated as assets, where in all respects we treat them as liabilities. Mothers are stuck with unwanted children. Fathers must pay child support, They can't be bought or sold. There is no expectation that they will look after their parents in their old age, etc. In short, BOTH parties believe that children should be treated as liabilities, but when you point this out, they dispute the claim. Why should mothers be stuck with unwanted children? Why not allow sales to parties who really want them? There are no answers to these and other similar questions because the underlying assumption is clearly wrong. The middle east situation is more complex but constructed on similar invalid assumptions. Are we on the same track now? Steve Richfield 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To all, I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name and number. The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing into: 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of resolving otherwise intractable disputes. 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into slavery, etc., etc. 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
This sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectical method... ben g On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Martin, On 11/18/08, martin biehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a precise counterexample, but I think you get my point. HERE is the crux of my argument, as other forms of logic fall short of being adequate to run a world with. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum is the first logical tool with the promise to resolve most intractable disputes, ranging from the abortion debate to the middle east problem. Some people get it easily, and some require long discussions, so I'll post the Cliff Notes version here, and if you want it in smaller doses, just send me an off-line email and we can talk on the phone. Reductio ad absurdum has worked unerringly for centuries to test bad assumptions. This constitutes a proof by lack of counterexample that the ONLY way to reach an absurd result is by a bad assumption, as otherwise, reductio ad absurdum would sometimes fail. Hence, when two intelligent people reach conflicting conclusions, but neither can see any errors in the other's logic, it would seem that they absolutely MUST have at least one bad assumption. Starting from the absurdity and searching for the assumption is where the reverse in reverse reductio ad absurdum comes in. If their false assumptions were different, than one or both parties would quickly discover them in discussion. However, when the argument stays on the surface, the ONLY place remaining to hide an invalid assumption is that they absolutely MUSH share the SAME invalid assumptions. Of course if our superintelligent AGI approaches them and points out their shared invalid assumption, then they would probably BOTH attack the AGI, as their invalid assumption may be their only point of connection. It appears that breaking this deadlock absolutely must involve first teaching both parties what reverse reductio ad absurdum is all about, as I am doing here. For example, take the abortion debate. It is obviously crazy to be making and killing babies, and it is a proven social disaster to make this illegal - an obvious reverse reductio ad absurdum situation. OK, so lets look at societies where abortion is no issue at all, e.g. Muslim societies, where it is freely available, but no one gets them. There, children are treated as assets, where in all respects we treat them as liabilities. Mothers are stuck with unwanted children. Fathers must pay child support, They can't be bought or sold. There is no expectation that they will look after their parents in their old age, etc. In short, BOTH parties believe that children should be treated as liabilities, but when you point this out, they dispute the claim. Why should mothers be stuck with unwanted children? Why not allow sales to parties who really want them? There are no answers to these and other similar questions because the underlying assumption is clearly wrong. The middle east situation is more complex but constructed on similar invalid assumptions. Are we on the same track now? Steve Richfield 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To all, I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name and number. The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially probing into: 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of resolving otherwise intractable disputes. 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into slavery, etc.,
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Bob, On 11/18/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am considering putting up a web site to filter the crazies as follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. This all sounds peachy in principle, but I expect it would exclude virtually everyone except perhaps a few of the most diehard philosophers. My goal is to identify those people who: 1. Are capable of rational thought, whether or not they chose to use that ability. I plan to test this with some simple problem solving. 2. Are not SO connected with some shitforbrains religious group/belief that they would predictably use dangerous technology to harm others. I plan to test this by simply demanding a declaration, which would send most such believers straight to Hell. Beyond that, I agree that it starts to get pretty hopeless. I think most people have at least a few beliefs which cannot be strictly justified rationally, and that would include many AI researchers. ... and probably include both of us as well. Irrational or inconsistent beliefs originate from being an entity with finite resources - finite experience and finite processing power and time with which to analyze the data. Many people use quick lookups handed to them by individuals considered to be of higher social status, principally because they don't have time or inclination to investigate the issues directly themselves. However, when someone (like me) points out carefully selected passages that are REALLY crazy, then do they re-evaluate, or continue to accept everything they see in the book? In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. - Mark Twain I completely agree. The question here is whether these people are capable of questioning and re-evaluation. If so, then they get their license. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Ben, On 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this test. This statement would be included on the license. Hmmm... don't I fail this test every time I follow the speed limit ? ;-) I don't think I stated this well, and perhaps you might be able to say it better. If your government wants you to go out and kill people, or help others to go out and kill people, and you don't see some glimmer of understanding from the leaders that this is really stupid, then perhaps you shouldn't contribute to such insanity. Then, just over this fence to help define the boundary... Look at the Star Wars anti-missile defense system. It can't possibly ever work well, as countermeasures are SO simple to implement. However, it was quite effective in bankrupting the Soviet Union, while people like me were going around and lecturing about horrible waste of public resources it was. In short, I think that re-evaluation is necessary at about the point where blood starts flowing. What are your thoughts? As another aside, it seems wrong to accuse Buddhists of condoning violence because they don't like MAD (which involves stockpiling nukes) ... you could accuse them of foolishness perhaps (though I don't necessarily agree) but not of condoning violence I have hours of discussion with Buddhists invested in this. I have no problem at all with them getting themselves killed, but I have a BIG problem with their asserting their beliefs to get OTHERS killed. If we had a Buddhist President who kept MAD from being implemented, there is a pretty good chance that we would not be here to have this discussion. As an aside, when you look CAREFULLY at the events that were unfolding as MAD was implemented, there really isn't anything at all against Buddhist beliefs in it - just a declaration that if you attack me, that I will attack in return, but without restraint against civilian targets. My feeling is that with such a group of intelligent and individualistic folks as transhumanists and AI researchers are, any litmus test for cognitive sanity you come up with is gonna be quickly revealed to be full of loopholes that lead to endless philosophical discussions... so that in the end, such a test could only be used as a general guide, with the ultimate cognitive-sanity-test to be made on a qualitative basis I guess that this is really what I was looking for - just what is that basis? For example, if someone can lie and answer questions in a logical manner just to get their license, then they have proven that they can be logical, whether or not they chose to be. I think that is about as good as is possible. In a small project like Novamente, we can evaluate each participant individually to assess their thought process and background. In a larger project like OpenCog, there is not much control over who gets involved, but making people sign a form promising to be rational and cognitively sane wouldn't seem to help much, as obviously there is nothing forcing people to be honest... ... other than their sure knowledge that they will go directly to Hell for even listening and considering such as we are discussing here. The Fiq is a body of work outside the Koran that is part of Islam, which includes stories of Mohamed's life, etc. Therein the boundary is precisely described. Islam demands that anyone who converts from Islam be killed. One poor fellow watched both of his parents refuse to renounce Islam, and then be killed by invaders. When it came to his turn, he quickly renounced to save his life. Now that he was being considered for execution, the ruling from Mohamed: If they ask you again, then renounce again. and he was released. BTW, it would be really stupid of me to try to enforce a different standard than you and other potential users of such a site would embrace, so my goal here is not only to discuss potential construction of such a site, but also to discuss just what that standard is. Hence, take my words as open for editing. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction)
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no volition. By what definitions does it feel pain? Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns. There is no other requirement. You stated that machines can feel pain, and you stated that we don't get to decide which ones. So can you precisely define grounding, internal feedback and volition (as properties of Turing machines) and prove that these criteria are valid? And just to avoid confusion, my question has nothing to do with ethics. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no volition. By what definitions does it feel pain? Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns. There is no other requirement. You stated that machines can feel pain, and you stated that we don't get to decide which ones. So can you precisely define grounding, internal feedback and volition (as properties of Turing machines) Clearly, this can be done, and has largely been done already ... though cutting and pasting or summarizing the relevant literature in emails would not a productive use of time and prove that these criteria are valid? That is a different issue, as it depends on the criteria of validity, of course... I think one can argue that these properties are necessary for a finite-resources AI system to display intense systemic patterns correlated with its goal-achieving behavior in the context of diverse goals and situations. So, one can argue that these properties are necessary for **the sort of consciousness associated with general intelligence** ... but that's a bit weaker than saying they are necessary for consciousness (and I don't think they are) ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction)
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly, this can be done, and has largely been done already ... though cutting and pasting or summarizing the relevant literature in emails would not a productive use of time Apparently, it was Einstein who said that if you can't explain it to your grandmother then you don't understand it. Of course, he never had to argue on the Internet. Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Richard and Bill, On 11/18/08, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. In 1994 I was literally sold into servitude in Saudi Arabia as a sort of slave programmer (In COBOL on HP-3000 computers) to the Royal Saudi Air Force. I managed to escape that situation with the help of the same Wahhabist Sunni Muslims that are now causing so many problems. With that background, I think I understand them better than most people. As in all other societies, they are not given the whole truth, e.g. most have never heard of the slaughter at Medina, and believe that Mohamed never hurt anyone at all. My hope and expectation is that, by allowing people to research various issues as they work on their test, that a LOT of people who might otherwise fail the test will instead reevaluate their beliefs, at least enough to come up with the right answers, whether or not they truly believe them. At least that level of understanding assures that they can carry on a reasoned conversation. This is a MAJOR problem now. Even here on this forum, many people still don't get *reverse* reductio ad absurdum. BTW, I place most of the blame for the middle east impasse on the West rather than on the East. The Koran says that most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they are doing good, which brings with it a good social mandate to publicly reconsider and defend any actions that others claim to be evil. The next step is to proclaim evil doers as unwitting agents of Satan. If there is still no good defense, then they drop the unwitting. Of course, us stupid uncivilized Westerners have fallen into this, and so 19 brave men sacrificed their lives just to get our attention, but even that failed to work as planned. Just what DOES it take to get our attention - a nuke in NYC? What the West has failed to realize is that they are playing a losing hand, but nonetheless, they just keep increasing the bet on the expectation that the other side will fold. They won't. I was as much intending my test for the sort of stupidity that nearly all Americans harbor as that carried by Al Queda. Neither side seems to be playing with a full deck. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Neurogenesis critical to mammalian learning and memory?
I attended a two day seminar on brain science at MIT about six years ago in which one of the papers was about neurognesis in the hippocampus. The speaker said he though neurogenisis was necessary in the hippocampus because hippocampus cells tend to die much more rapidly than most cells, and thus need to be replaced. -Original Message- From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:58 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] Neurogenesis critical to mammalian learning and memory? . interesting if true .. http://www.medindia.net/news/Key-to-Learning-and-Memory-Continuous-Brain-Cel l-Generation-41297-1.htm -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert Heinlein _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; 0 Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Could we please stick to discussion of AGI? -Ben From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:39 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... Richard and Bill, On 11/18/08, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. In 1994 I was literally sold into servitude in Saudi Arabia as a sort of slave programmer (In COBOL on HP-3000 computers) to the Royal Saudi Air Force. I managed to escape that situation with the help of the same Wahhabist Sunni Muslims that are now causing so many problems. With that background, I think I understand them better than most people. As in all other societies, they are not given the whole truth, e.g. most have never heard of the slaughter at Medina, and believe that Mohamed never hurt anyone at all. My hope and expectation is that, by allowing people to research various issues as they work on their test, that a LOT of people who might otherwise fail the test will instead reevaluate their beliefs, at least enough to come up with the right answers, whether or not they truly believe them. At least that level of understanding assures that they can carry on a reasoned conversation. This is a MAJOR problem now. Even here on this forum, many people still don't get reverse reductio ad absurdum. BTW, I place most of the blame for the middle east impasse on the West rather than on the East. The Koran says that most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they are doing good, which brings with it a good social mandate to publicly reconsider and defend any actions that others claim to be evil. The next step is to proclaim evil doers as unwitting agents of Satan. If there is still no good defense, then they drop the unwitting. Of course, us stupid uncivilized Westerners have fallen into this, and so 19 brave men sacrificed their lives just to get our attention, but even that failed to work as planned. Just what DOES it take to get our attention - a nuke in NYC? What the West has failed to realize is that they are playing a losing hand, but nonetheless, they just keep increasing the bet on the expectation that the other side will fold. They won't. I was as much intending my test for the sort of stupidity that nearly all Americans harbor as that carried by Al Queda. Neither side seems to be playing with a full deck. Steve Richfield _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; 9 Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Steve, what is the purpose of your political litmus test? If you are trying to assemble a team of seed-AI programmers with the correct ethics, forget it. Seed AI is a myth. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html (section 2). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:39 PM Richard and Bill, On 11/18/08, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. In 1994 I was literally sold into servitude in Saudi Arabia as a sort of slave programmer (In COBOL on HP-3000 computers) to the Royal Saudi Air Force. I managed to escape that situation with the help of the same Wahhabist Sunni Muslims that are now causing so many problems. With that background, I think I understand them better than most people. As in all other societies, they are not given the whole truth, e.g. most have never heard of the slaughter at Medina, and believe that Mohamed never hurt anyone at all. My hope and expectation is that, by allowing people to research various issues as they work on their test, that a LOT of people who might otherwise fail the test will instead reevaluate their beliefs, at least enough to come up with the right answers, whether or not they truly believe them. At least that level of understanding assures that they can carry on a reasoned conversation. This is a MAJOR problem now. Even here on this forum, many people still don't get reverse reductio ad absurdum. BTW, I place most of the blame for the middle east impasse on the West rather than on the East. The Koran says that most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they are doing good, which brings with it a good social mandate to publicly reconsider and defend any actions that others claim to be evil. The next step is to proclaim evil doers as unwitting agents of Satan. If there is still no good defense, then they drop the unwitting. Of course, us stupid uncivilized Westerners have fallen into this, and so 19 brave men sacrificed their lives just to get our attention, but even that failed to work as planned. Just what DOES it take to get our attention - a nuke in NYC? What the West has failed to realize is that they are playing a losing hand, but nonetheless, they just keep increasing the bet on the expectation that the other side will fold. They won't. I was as much intending my test for the sort of stupidity that nearly all Americans harbor as that carried by Al Queda. Neither side seems to be playing with a full deck. Steve Richfield agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
Richard, I re-read your paper and I'm afraid I really don't grok why you think it solves Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness... It really seems to me like what you're suggesting is a cognitive correlate of consciousness, to morph the common phrase neural correlate of consciousness ... You seem to be stating that when X is an unanalyzable, pure atomic sensation from the perspective of cognitive system C, then C will perceive X as a raw quale ... unanalyzable and not explicable by ordinary methods of explication, yet, still subjectively real... But, I don't see how the hypothesis Conscious experience is **identified with** unanalyzable mind-atoms could be distinguished empirically from Conscious experience is **correlated with** unanalyzable mind-atoms I think finding cognitive correlates of consciousness is interesting, but I don't think it constitutes solving the hard problem in Chalmers' sense... I grok that you're saying consciousness feels inexplicable because it has to do with atoms that the system can't explain, due to their role as its primitive atoms ... and this is a good idea, but, I don't see how it bridges the gap btw subjective experience and empirical data ... What it does is explain why, even if there *were* no hard problem, cognitive systems might feel like there is one, in regard to their unanalyzable atoms Another worry I have is: I feel like I can be conscious of my son, even though he is not an unanalyzable atom. I feel like I can be conscious of the unique impression he makes ... in the same way that I'm conscious of redness ... and, yeah, I feel like I can't fully explain the conscious impression he makes on me, even though I can explain a lot of things about him... So I'm not convinced that atomic sensor input is the only source of raw, unanalyzable consciousness... -- Ben G On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: Harry Chesley wrote: Richard Loosemore wrote: I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be found at: http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf One other point: Although this is a possible explanation for our subjective experience of qualia like red or soft, I don't see it explaining pain or happy quite so easily. You can hypothesize a sort of mechanism-level explanation of those by relegating them to the older or lower parts of the brain (i.e., they're atomic at the conscious level, but have more effects at the physiological level (like releasing chemicals into the system)), but that doesn't satisfactorily cover the subjective side for me. I do have a quick answer to that one. Remember that the core of the model is the *scope* of the analysis mechanism. If there is a sharp boundary (as well there might be), then this defines the point where the qualia kick in. Pain receptors are fairly easy: they are primitive signal lines. Emotions are, I believe, caused by clusters of lower brain structures, so the interface between lower brain and foreground is the place where the foreground sees a limit to the analysis mechanisms. More generally, the significance of the foreground is that it sets a boundary on how far the analysis mechanisms can reach. I am not sure why that would seem less satisfactory as an explanation of the subjectivity. It is a raw feel, and that is the key idea, no? My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why do some feel different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate but equal? Red is relatively neutral, while searing hot is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of consciousness, but that doesn't explain to me why it feels qualitatively different. If it was just something like increased activity (franticness) in response to searing hot, then fine, that could just be something like adrenaline being pumped into the system, but there is a subjective feeling that goes beyond that. There is more than one question wrapped up inside this question, I think. First: all qualia feel different, of course. You seem to be pointing to a sense in which pain is more different than most ? But is that really a valid idea? Does pain have differentiable details? Well, there are different types of pain but that is to be expected, like different colors. But that is arelatively trivial point. Within one single pain there can be several *effects* of that pain, including some strange ones that do not have counterparts in the vision-color case. For example, suppose that a searing hot pain caused a simultaneous triggering of the motivational system, forcing you to suddenly want to do something (like pulling your body part away from the pain). The feeling of wanting (wanting to pull away) is a quale of its own,
Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction)
Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns. There is no other requirement. I made up no rules. I merely asked a question. You are the one who makes a definition like this and then says that it is up to people to decide whether other humans feel pain or not. That is hypocritical to an extreme. I also believe that your definition is a total crock that was developed for no purpose other than to support your BS. You stated that machines can feel pain, and you stated that we don't get to decide which ones. So can you precisely define grounding, internal feedback and volition (as properties of Turing machines) and prove that these criteria are valid? I stated that *SOME* future machines will be able to feel pain. I can define grounding, internal feedback and volition but feel no need to do so as properties of a Turing machine and decline to attempt to prove anything to you since you're so full of it that your mother couldn't prove to you that you were born. - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:26 PM Subject: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction) --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no volition. By what definitions does it feel pain? Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns. There is no other requirement. You stated that machines can feel pain, and you stated that we don't get to decide which ones. So can you precisely define grounding, internal feedback and volition (as properties of Turing machines) and prove that these criteria are valid? And just to avoid confusion, my question has nothing to do with ethics. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction)
I am just trying to point out the contradictions in Mark's sweeping generalizations about the treatment of intelligent machines Huh? That's what you're trying to do? Normally people do that by pointing to two different statements and arguing that they contradict each other. Not by creating new, really silly definitions and then trying to posit a universe where blue equals red so everybody is confused. But to be fair, such criticism is unwarranted. So exactly why are you persisting? Ethical beliefs are emotional, not rational, Ethical beliefs are subconscious and deliberately obscured from the conscious mind so that defections can be explained away without triggering other primate's lie-detecting senses. However, contrary to your antiquated beliefs, they are *purely* a survival trait with a very solid grounding. Ethical beliefs are also algorithmically complex Absolutely not. Ethical beliefs are actually pretty darn simple as far as the subconscious is concerned. It's only when the conscious rational mind gets involved that ethics are twisted beyond recognition (just like all your arguments). so the result of this argument could only result in increasingly complex rules to fit his model Again, absolutely not. You have no clue as to what my argument is yet you fantasize that you can predict it's results. BAH! For the record, I do have ethical beliefs like most other people Yet you persist in arguing otherwise. *Most* people would call that dishonest, deceitful, and time-wasting. The question is not how should we interact with machines, but how will we? No, it isn't. Study the results on ethical behavior when people are convinced that they don't have free will. = = = = = BAH! I should have quit answering you long ago. No more. - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:58 PM Subject: Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction) Just to clarify, I'm not really interested in whether machines feel pain. I am just trying to point out the contradictions in Mark's sweeping generalizations about the treatment of intelligent machines. But to be fair, such criticism is unwarented. Mark is arguing about ethics. Everyone has ethical beliefs. Ethical beliefs are emotional, not rational, although we often forget this. Ethical beliefs are also algorithmically complex, so the result of this argument could only result in increasingly complex rules to fit his model. It would be unfair to bore the rest of this list with such a discussion. For the record, I do have ethical beliefs like most other people, but they are irrelevant to the design of AGI. The question is not how should we interact with machines, but how will we? For example, when we develop the technology to simulate human minds in general, or to simulate specific humans who have died, common ethical models among humans will probably result in the granting of legal and property rights to these simulations. Since these simulations could reproduce, evolve, and acquire computing resources much faster than humans, the likely result will be human extinction, or viewed another way, our evolution into a non-DNA based life form. I won't offer an opinion on whether this is desirable or not, because my opinion would be based on my ethical beliefs. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Definition of pain (was Re: FW: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness--correction) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:29 PM On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no volition. By what definitions does it feel pain? Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that learns. There is no other requirement. You stated that machines can feel pain, and you stated that we don't get to decide which ones. So can you precisely define grounding, internal feedback and volition (as properties of Turing machines) Clearly, this can be done, and has largely been done already ... though cutting and pasting or summarizing the relevant literature in emails would not a productive use of time and prove that these criteria are valid? That is a different issue, as it depends on the criteria of validity, of course... I think one can argue that these properties are necessary for a
Re: **SPAM** Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Seed AI is a myth. Ah. Now I get it. You are on this list solely to try to slow down progress as much as possible . . . . (sorry that I've been so slow to realize this) add-rule kill-file Matt Mahoney - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:23 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... Steve, what is the purpose of your political litmus test? If you are trying to assemble a team of seed-AI programmers with the correct ethics, forget it. Seed AI is a myth. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html (section 2). -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:39 PM Richard and Bill, On 11/18/08, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. In 1994 I was literally sold into servitude in Saudi Arabia as a sort of slave programmer (In COBOL on HP-3000 computers) to the Royal Saudi Air Force. I managed to escape that situation with the help of the same Wahhabist Sunni Muslims that are now causing so many problems. With that background, I think I understand them better than most people. As in all other societies, they are not given the whole truth, e.g. most have never heard of the slaughter at Medina, and believe that Mohamed never hurt anyone at all. My hope and expectation is that, by allowing people to research various issues as they work on their test, that a LOT of people who might otherwise fail the test will instead reevaluate their beliefs, at least enough to come up with the right answers, whether or not they truly believe them. At least that level of understanding assures that they can carry on a reasoned conversation. This is a MAJOR problem now. Even here on this forum, many people still don't get reverse reductio ad absurdum. BTW, I place most of the blame for the middle east impasse on the West rather than on the East. The Koran says that most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they are doing good, which brings with it a good social mandate to publicly reconsider and defend any actions that others claim to be evil. The next step is to proclaim evil doers as unwitting agents of Satan. If there is still no good defense, then they drop the unwitting. Of course, us stupid uncivilized Westerners have fallen into this, and so 19 brave men sacrificed their lives just to get our attention, but even that failed to work as planned. Just what DOES it take to get our attention - a nuke in NYC? What the West has failed to realize is that they are playing a losing hand, but nonetheless, they just keep increasing the bet on the expectation that the other side will fold. They won't. I was as much intending my test for the sort of stupidity that nearly all Americans harbor as that carried by Al Queda. Neither side seems to be playing with a full deck. Steve Richfield -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: **SPAM** Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies...
Matt and Mark, I think you both missed my point, but in different ways, namely, that there is a LOT of traffic here on this forum over a problem that appears easy to resolve once and for all time, and further, that the solution may work for much more important worldwide social problems. Continuing with responses to specific points... On 11/18/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seed AI is a myth. Ah. Now I get it. You are on this list solely to try to slow down progress as much as possible . . . . (sorry that I've been so slow to realize this) No. Like you, we are all trying to put this OT issue out of our misery. I do appreciate Matt's efforts, misguided though they may be. Continuing with Matt's comments... *From:* Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:23 PM *Subject:* **SPAM** Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... Steve, what is the purpose of your political litmus test? I had no intention at all of imposing any sort of political test, beyond simply looking for some assurance that they weren't about to use the technology to kill anyone who wasn't in desperate need of being killed. If you are trying to assemble a team of seed-AI programmers with the correct ethics, forget it. Seed AI is a myth. I agree, though my reasoning may be a bit different than yours. Why would any thinking machine ever want to produce a better thinking machine? Besides, I can take bright but long-term low-temp people like Loosemore, who appears to be an absolutely perfect candidate, and make them super-human intelligent by simply removing the impairment that they have learned to live with. In Loosemore's case, this is probably the equivalent of several alcoholic drinks, yet he is pretty bright even with that impairment. I would ask you to imagine what he would be without that impairment, but it may well be beyond anyone here's ability to imagine, and well on the way to a seed, though I suspect that with much more intelligence than he already has, that he would question that goal. Thanks everyone for your comments. Steve Richfield = --- On *Tue, 11/18/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]*wrote: From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous technologies... To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:39 PM Richard and Bill, On 11/18/08, BillK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers. Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well. They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around. In 1994 I was literally sold into servitude in Saudi Arabia as a sort of slave programmer (In COBOL on HP-3000 computers) to the Royal Saudi Air Force. I managed to escape that situation with the help of the same Wahhabist Sunni Muslims that are now causing so many problems. With that background, I think I understand them better than most people. As in all other societies, they are not given the whole truth, e.g. most have never heard of the slaughter at Medina, and believe that Mohamed never hurt anyone at all. My hope and expectation is that, by allowing people to research various issues as they work on their test, that a LOT of people who might otherwise fail the test will instead reevaluate their beliefs, at least enough to come up with the right answers, whether or not they truly believe them. At least that level of understanding assures that they can carry on a reasoned conversation. This is a MAJOR problem now. Even here on this forum, many people still don't get *reverse* reductio ad absurdum. BTW, I place most of the blame for the middle east impasse on the West rather than on the East. The Koran says that most of the evil in the world is done by people who think they are doing good, which brings with it a good social mandate to publicly reconsider and defend any actions that others claim to be evil. The next step is to proclaim evil doers as unwitting agents of Satan. If there is still no good defense, then they drop the unwitting. Of course, us stupid uncivilized Westerners have fallen into this, and so 19 brave men sacrificed their lives just to get our attention, but even that failed to work as planned. Just what DOES it take to get our attention - a nuke in NYC? What the West has failed to realize is that they are playing a losing hand, but nonetheless, they just keep increasing the bet on the expectation that the other side will fold. They won't. I was as much intending my test for the sort of stupidity that nearly all Americans harbor as that carried by Al Queda. Neither side seems to be playing with a full deck. Steve Richfield --
