Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 26 Nov 2014, at 20:23, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. I agree also. OK. An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be intelligent, without competence I don't understand the distinction, but I do know that competence means having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of intelligence? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. You can think of intelligence like a potential, and competence like a force. Competence would be like the derivative of intelligence. Of course this is just an image. The idea is that intelligence is what allow competence to be developed. I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. Then please do so. I'm all ears. I have taught mathematics to mentally handicapped persons. Most look like they were very dumb, and most did not have any competence in mathematics. By being very patient, and by letting them use computer (which were very new at that time), I was able to trig some motivation and interest among some of them, and realized that those were intelligent, and than the lack of competence came from their handicap. I tend to think that intelligence is a natural attribute of universal machine. They can, in principle, learn everything learnable. But to develop a competence, which is more like a manifested intelligence, they need enough memories, and some training or programming. Sometimes I go farer, and define intelligence negatively: an entity is intelligent if it does not utter stupidities. This is a *very* large definition which makes pebbles intelligent (no one has ever heard a pebble saying a stupidity), but the pebbles is obviously incompetent (except in finding the shortest path to the ground when being dropped). In all case the basic idea is that competence is an ability to solve problem in some domain, and intelligence is the ability to develop that competence. An old researcher can be very competent in his domain, but can lack intelligence, as no more being able to augment its competence, or to develop a new one. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
LizR wrote: On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two dimensions of time? Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then perhaps, yes... Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems. (Wikipedia). Increase is a temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:34, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: No that is not fine. I DEFINE intelligence just as everybody else does, the ability to find novel solutions to new problems, the greater the variety of problems the greater the intelligence. I DEDUCE that if intelligent beings can be non-conscious then Darwin was wrong. My OPINION is that Darwin was not wrong. I don't think that deduction is unqualifiedly valid. First, evolution permits what Gould called spandrels. I don't think human consciousness is a spandrel, but it's possible. Second, there may be different ways of being intelligent (as game theorists will play NIM differently from most people) and human consciousness necessarily accompanied human intelligence because of the precursors (hominid intelligence) that evolution had to start with. For example, I think human consciousness and intelligence are both closely linked to language. Language is an evolutionarily useful adaptation of social animals. But I see no reason that no-social animals cannot be intelligent (e.g. ocotopi are solitary by are the most intlligent non-vertebrates). This implies that there can be intelligent beings without language and therefore without anything like human-consciousness; although they would have consciousness in Bruno's sense of being aware. OK. I see consciousness being very close to the simple belief that there is a reality. This is equivalent to belief in self-consistency, and by the second incompleteness, such a belief is not justifiable by the entity. So I see consciousness as an elementary mystical state, where we have vision and interpret it as showing the existence of something without being able to prove or justify that existence. Yet this is what gives the meaning or the semantic of the proposition that the machine can made. Intelligence is more like a *disposition* making it possible to develop some competence to act on, or change, that reality. A crow is said intelligent because they can use tools to extract some food from a recipient, and adapt the tools with respect to the recipient. But a bird which cannot do that intelligent task, can still be as much conscious than the crow. It just does not get the right ideas, perhaps it has not the patience, or it has not enough memories, but it believes as much as the crow in some reality around them. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 11:23 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. I agree also. An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be intelligent, without competence I don't understand the distinction, but I do know that competence means having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of intelligence? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. My understanding is that intelligence refers to learning ability and behavior adaptability to novel circumstances. Competence is being able to act effectively in a given circumstance, but not necessarily adaptable to new circumstances. If a pipe breaks a plumber will be competent to fix it, but if his computer fails he will not be competent to fix it and he may not be intelligent enough to learn how to fix it. So intelligence is sort of meta-competence, i.e. competence at becoming competent in particular fields. Yes, that is the basic idea. I teach also to young people. Some are intelligent, but never get competent because they does not study, for many reason, like being more interested in girls than in math, for example. Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. A typical case is well illustrated by quantum mechanics. A student fails his exam in QM because he tried to understand the collapse, and get stuck on it, where other student just take it as a rule of thumb, perhaps without even seeing the problem. Bruno Brent Then please do so. I'm all ears. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 01:59, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. My understanding is that intelligence refers to learning ability and behavior adaptability to novel circumstances. Competence is being able to act effectively in a given circumstance, but not necessarily adaptable to new circumstances. But Bruno says something can be intelligent without being competent, and that doesn't make one particle of sense to me. It can solve difficult and novel problems but it can't solve easy problems that it sees all the time?? May be you can see this in this way: take an intelligent child, and put him/her in a box, and close the box. You get an intelligent entity, but without any competence, for the reason that being enclosed in a box makes yopu no more competent than a pebble. Intelligence is the potential to develop competence. It is more an internal flexibility of mind than a well defined type of procedural knowledge. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 03:39, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 4:41 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think human consciousness is a spandrel If consciousness does not effect intelligent behavior and if Darwin's Theory is correct then there is no alternative, That assumes human beings and human evolution - and I agree with that application. But it does not show that intelligence could not evolve without human-like consciousness which I take to be a inner narrative. consciousness is a spandrel. And if consciousness does effect intelligent behavior then the Turing Test works for both consciousness and intelligence. So either way if a fan of Darwin and a fan of logic runs across a computer that passes the Turing Test he MUST conclude that the machine is at least as conscious as his fellow human beings are. there may be different ways of being intelligent Almost certainly. Given that intelligence is the most complex thing in the known universe it would be very surprising indeed if it could be described by just one number, you need 2 for even something as simple as the wind. I think human consciousness and intelligence are both closely linked to language. I think so too. I am quite certain of it. Language is an evolutionarily useful adaptation of social animals. And even if those social animals were put in a non-social situation, marooned all alone on a desert island for example, they could not think properly and efficiently without language. And even a lone brain the size of Jupiter could not think properly unless it had a language to communicate abstract ideas between distant parts of its vast brain. Language is auditory. Abstract ideas can be represented in images or (per Bruno) numerical relations. You imply that any representation is language, but I think that's wrong. An intelligent might think in three dimensional patterns and not something one-dimensional like language. And neither is it necessary that there be an internal language for subroutines to work. There are encryption systems that provide for computations to be performed on data and results returned with ever decrypting the data; so the part of the system doing the calculation never receives any communication that has meaning to it. But I see no reason that no-social animals cannot be intelligent (e.g. ocotopi are solitary by are the most intlligent non- vertebrates). All animals have some degree of intelligence and the octopus has more than most, but they are nowhere near smart enough to make radio telescopes, and lets face it that's what people usually mean when they talk about intelligent beings. But that doesn't prove that octopi could not be both solitary and intelligent and not have an inner narrative. I think the thing that separates humans from other animals is that about 100,000 years ago we developed a system that can encode even very abstract ideas into a few simple sounds; this not only enabled collective learning but also enormously magnified the power of individual thought. So do you agree that having an inner narrative is the definition of consciousness, something much more restrictive than Bruno's awareness? Hadamard wrote a book on the psychology of mathematicians. He tested his colleagues, and other mathematicians on the following question: Are you using words when you think (when doing math)? One half of the answer was no: they were thinking with images, feeling, ... without inner narrative. I am like that too, most of my thinking are like a mute movie, with images, but without language. I think with language only when I think about communicating to others, but I don't need to communicate to myself, so I don't talk to myself. Of course, this leads sometimes to having the feeling that a problem is solved, and the attempt to communicate it makes me realize that some points where wrongly taken for granted. In that case I can do back-and-forth between thinking with words and without words. So, I think that consciousness does not need an inner narrative per se. Consciousness is just awareness of some reality. When we are in pain, we are conscious, but we don't need to think I am in pain to get the relevant awareness. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 05:33, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 4:59 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. My understanding is that intelligence refers to learning ability and behavior adaptability to novel circumstances. Competence is being able to act effectively in a given circumstance, but not necessarilyadaptable to new circumstances. But Bruno says something can be intelligent without being competent, No, he says competence has a negative feedback on intelligence; meaning that when you learn to be competent at some task you stop thinking about it and don't learn anymore. He equates intelligence with ability to learn, so by his definition an infant is more intelligent than an Einstein (isn't it amazing how kids learn a language?). Yes. I agree, and the phenomenon of neotony illustrates that evolution of the human has favored a very long childhood, making it possible to keep that internal flexibility of mind for a long period, making he humans ability of learning much more powerful than most other animals. A chimp is basically adult at the age of two. Bruno Brent and that doesn't make one particle of sense to me. It can solve difficult and novel problems but it can't solve easy problems that it sees all the time?? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: real A.I.
On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: Nice :) One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us. Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :) Bruno On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: http://xkcd.com/1450/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:09:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2014, at 20:23, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. I agree also. OK. An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be intelligent, without competence I don't understand the distinction, but I do know that competence means having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of intelligence? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. You can think of intelligence like a potential, and competence like a force. Competence would be like the derivative of intelligence. Of course this is just an image. The idea is that intelligence is what allow competence to be developed. There's significant decoupling between these concepts. Most of the other working concepts in cognition are probably situated between these two :O) Being competent is being fit for purposemore at the task end of things. Obviously if you want to be a competent brain surgeon or astronaut I.Q. starts to come into its 15 minutes. I felt duty bound to science to support I.Q. science for years basically. Make it sound like a sacrifice because in some ways that's what it is. People obey political correctness over science. Like herebig debate about intelligence with lots of fragrance burning on the stick. That people hold their strong view as rational men of science. But actually people pretend science doesn't exist, and there isn't a science of intelligence. Not principle most cases, but fear. People know it's policed. They feel saying something in public could do them harm down the line. So they deny science. Just sayin'. But that having been said. I have recently discovered a fatal flaw in I.Q. science. Fatal. It's a remarkable thing actually..this particular kind of flaw. It's alive almost. Well, obviously not alive.but it behaves like it is alive. It will hide in the details and deploy misdirection. It will frame the good guy, and be like the darling of I.Q. those little whores of mensa (woody allen short story). Harden 'g', make it fit all the studies, correlate through multidimensional physical marker solidly invariant as a block. Yeahstraight up my dead parrot as my witness may the devil strike me dead. It's wot I saw...wriggling it was. Slithering. Look there I say. Look there if conscious intent what be seek..ing...ed...is you I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. Then please do so. I'm all ears. I have taught mathematics to mentally handicapped persons. Most look like they were very dumb, and most did not have any competence in mathematics. By being very patient, and by letting them use computer (which were very new at that time), I was able to trig some motivation and interest among some of them, and realized that those were intelligent, and than the lack of competence came from their handicap. I tend to think that intelligence is a natural attribute of universal machine. They can, in principle, learn everything learnable. But to develop a competence, which is more like a manifested intelligence, they need enough memories, and some training or programming. Sometimes I go farer, and define intelligence negatively: an entity is intelligent if it does not utter stupidities. This is a *very* large definition which makes pebbles intelligent (no one has ever heard a pebble saying a stupidity), but the pebbles is obviously incompetent (except in finding the shortest path to the ground when being dropped). In all case the basic idea is that competence is an ability to solve problem in some domain, and intelligence is the ability to develop that competence. An old researcher can be very competent in his domain, but can lack intelligence, as no more being able to augment its competence, or to develop a new one. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: real A.I.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: Nice :) One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us. Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :) https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/calvin-and-hobbes-math.jpg?w=676 :) Bruno On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: http://xkcd.com/1450/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/27/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:34, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: No that is not fine. I DEFINE intelligence just as everybody else does, the ability to find novel solutions to new problems, the greater the variety of problems the greater the intelligence. I DEDUCE that if intelligent beings can be non-conscious then Darwin was wrong. My OPINION is that Darwin was not wrong. I don't think that deduction is unqualifiedly valid. First, evolution permits what Gould called spandrels. I don't think human consciousness is a spandrel, but it's possible. Second, there may be different ways of being intelligent (as game theorists will play NIM differently from most people) and human consciousness necessarily accompanied human intelligence because of the precursors (hominid intelligence) that evolution had to start with. For example, I think human consciousness and intelligence are both closely linked to language. Language is an evolutionarily useful adaptation of social animals. But I see no reason that no-social animals cannot be intelligent (e.g. ocotopi are solitary by are the most intlligent non-vertebrates). This implies that there can be intelligent beings without language and therefore without anything like human-consciousness; although they would have consciousness in Bruno's sense of being aware. OK. I see consciousness being very close to the simple belief that there is a reality. Meaning that one perceives things that don't respond to one's will, things that constitute an environment that is independent of self. This requires some sensors, some values to be pursued, and the ability to form a model of self+environment+interactions. This is equivalent to belief in self-consistency, How so? Brent and by the second incompleteness, such a belief is not justifiable by the entity. So I see consciousness as an elementary mystical state, where we have vision and interpret it as showing the existence of something without being able to prove or justify that existence. Yet this is what gives the meaning or the semantic of the proposition that the machine can made. Intelligence is more like a *disposition* making it possible to develop some competence to act on, or change, that reality. A crow is said intelligent because they can use tools to extract some food from a recipient, and adapt the tools with respect to the recipient. But a bird which cannot do that intelligent task, can still be as much conscious than the crow. It just does not get the right ideas, perhaps it has not the patience, or it has not enough memories, but it believes as much as the crow in some reality around them. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/27/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote: On 11/26/2014 11:23 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I agree that consciousness is not intelligence. I agree also. An entity can be competent, without intelligence [...] An entity can be intelligent, without competence I don't understand the distinction, but I do know that competence means having the skill and knowledge to get the job done, so what's the point of intelligence? As far as survival is concerned (and getting genes into the next generation is the only thing Evolution is concerned with) Intelligence, whatever you mean by the word, would be as useless as consciousness. So now you've doubled the number of mysteries you need to explain, not only do you need to explain why Evolution invented consciousness you can't even explain why it invented Intelligence. I insist also to distinguish intelligence from competence. My understanding is that intelligence refers to learning ability and behavior adaptability to novel circumstances. Competence is being able to act effectively in a given circumstance, but not necessarily adaptable to new circumstances. If a pipe breaks a plumber will be competent to fix it, but if his computer fails he will not be competent to fix it and he may not be intelligent enough to learn how to fix it. So intelligence is sort of meta-competence, i.e. competence at becoming competent in particular fields. Yes, that is the basic idea. I teach also to young people. Some are intelligent, but never get competent because they does not study, for many reason, like being more interested in girls than in math, for example. That's an example of wisdom over intelligence. :-) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: LizR wrote: On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two dimensions of time? Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then perhaps, yes... Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems. (Wikipedia). Increase is a temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time. Entropy has a unique expression for each context cropping up on a regular basis. Isn't that so? I thought the driver behind that was each context has some distinguishing feature that changes the intuitive approach to thinking about entropy. Like entropy for Chemistry. The mechanism tends to be chemical reactions, and the intuitive sequencing for that has the distinguishing feature of being scale invariant, more or less. So the intuitive direction is always to the maximum scale with the same bounds. So it tends to be about the law of finding the shortest path to the equilibrium.t How the approach is exponential. Because chemistry follows the same sequence at the same rate for the same initial conditions, the same for a 10m cubed section of...the surface of a planet or whatever...as the same structure up scale to the whole planet. Is that wrong? So anyway, entropy and disorder and 'states', thermodynamics, time (scale free means time invariant more or less). None of that gets mentioned at all in the most common reference. I appreciate nothing I say contradicts what you say...it's just that I feel that this is a really fundamental character to entropy. No one feels the same way it seemsI have mentioned this before but I don't think I ever get a reply. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. I cannot see how anyone could not see how a -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. I cannot see how anyone could not go along with this. This is a description of The Intelligence Trap and it has been defined in precisely this way by de Bono. Clever people are often stymied by their speed of operation. They lack humility and the ability to doubt their own beliefs and conclusions. Less clever types think more slowly and carefully because they doubt their intelligence is accurate when driven at high speed. You can own a Ferrari and wrap it and yourself around a tree by allowing your self-belief to drive the car rather than respond more cautiously to the dynamic environment through which you are moving. Or, you might own a clapped-out Deux-Chevaux and drive it at 30 clicks everywhere. You arrive late and infuriate other drivers along the way, but the difference is you arrive, whereas the Ferrari driver is dead. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 Nov 2014, at 6:59 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. I cannot see how anyone could not go along with this. This is a description of The Intelligence Trap and it has been defined in precisely this way by de Bono. Clever people are often stymied by their speed of operation. They lack humility and the ability to doubt their own beliefs and conclusions. Less clever types think more slowly and carefully because they doubt their intelligence is accurate when driven at high speed. You can own a Ferrari and wrap it and yourself around a tree by allowing your self-belief to drive the car rather than respond more cautiously to the dynamic environment through which you are moving. Or, you might own a clapped-out Deux-Chevaux and drive it at 30 clicks everywhere. You arrive late and infuriate other drivers along the way, but the difference is you arrive, whereas the Ferrari driver is dead. Kim In fact, I myself just provided a neat example of the Intelligence Trap. You will note that I sent the above post twice, the first being incomplete. In my haste to type a response to B's passage, I did not perceive that my little finger was hovering dangerously close to the send button as I typed and as a result simple inadvertance engineered the outcome. This you might call an accident but I might have avoided it by remaining more cool and less ready to be right. Inadvertance could be defined as a surfeit of self-confidence which leads to poor perception. Thus, intelligence has negative feedback on competence. K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational evidence to support this. Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. I repeated it because the other poster ignored what I'd said the first time AND made snarky comments showing he'd missed the point I was making, hence I felt it was worthwhile repeating it. Anyway, the point still holds. Dark matter is responsible for much of the structure of the universe, and if it's being turned into energy and radiated away then its gravitational attraction goes with it. Hence galaxies, held together by dark matter (as I Zwicky discovered in 1933 by studying their rotation curves) should be expanding IF dark matter is being annihilated, because the visible structure is rotating at the same speed around a centre containing a decreasing amount of mass. So, if I've understood this theory correctly, galaxies should be getting bigger. Can someone either explain how I've missed the point of the theory OR tell me if there is evidence of galaxies growing larger due to this effect? If not then I can happily forget this theory because it predicts some startling observational evidence that doesn't exist. prediction: this won't be going awayit'll ramp up independent corroboration. The idea of denying the reality (if that's what it proves to be) based on observations about dark matter needing to evaporate with exploding galaxies, has comedic flair, but I fear may also be prophetic. It's easier than denying the collapse in the two slit :O) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:15:59 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 6:59 am, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: wrote: On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. I cannot see how anyone could not go along with this. This is a description of The Intelligence Trap For some the fact there's no evidence, and the fella behind The Intelligence Trap seems not to regard his theory as worth or in need of running a couple of studies. Despite the claims being fairly testable. There is some evidence high i.q. brains are more streamlined, with correspond loss of the mesh of pathways that otherwise would bulge out. Which could mean people with less high I.Q. do have a potential for uncovering strange/novel insights. It's plausible, but not as a counterweight to the relative disadvantage of a lower I.Q. But if there's a legitimate idea, there's a legitimate study that could shed some light on whether the idea is right. The fact Mr Intelligence Trap man pushes something as a theory and people 'cannot see how anyone would not go along with... raises legitimate questions about why there's no effort at evidence. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
I don't understand how this works, so I can't comment on the details. I seem to remember asking for a simple version that a dummy like me can understand - and don't recall seeing it, although maybe I missed it. But in any case the 2nd law isn't a law of physics, it's just what tends to happen given certain circumstances. Say you lose one earring, what are the chances someone will find it, recognised it as yours and mail it to you? Generally rather low, but it could happen, it just relies on an unlikely chain of random factors operating in your favour, to quote Mr Spock. The 2nd law is like that - unlikely things generally failing to happen - on the molecular scale, a zillion times per second. You can't circumvent it unless you can circumvent the maths of probability. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
Al Hibbs, you have once again forgotten to uncheck the cc to sender button before sending which is, as everyone knows, the clearest signal that you are Al Hibbs since no one else who inhabits this list does that because there is no need whatsoever for this. If you are not doing it inadvertently, then you are merely wicked, which is another form of Intelligence. Mr Intelligence Trap needs no evidence to substantiate his theory other than to observe the highly intelligent yet erratic and ill-considered behaviour of people like yourself who prove regularly (and of course, inadvertently) that the Intelligence Trap is alive and kicking. Kim On 28 Nov 2014, at 7:35 am, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:15:59 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 6:59 am, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 27 Nov 2014, at 7:28 pm, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Sometimes intelligence itself can be an handicap for getting the competence. A stupid student can study the course better than a clever student, because the clever student want to understand the details, and get stuck on philosophical question, where the stupid student will have no problem remembering by heart definition, and training itself to solve problems, not even seeing that the method assumes a lot. The clever one will think to the case where the method does not apply, and get stuck in trying to find a better method, and fail to be able to solve the problem in the easy case, because he is too much ambitious, and want a general method, with a proper justification. I cannot see how anyone could not go along with this. This is a description of The Intelligence Trap For some the fact there's no evidence, and the fella behind The Intelligence Trap seems not to regard his theory as worth or in need of running a couple of studies. Despite the claims being fairly testable. There is some evidence high i.q. brains are more streamlined, with correspond loss of the mesh of pathways that otherwise would bulge out. Which could mean people with less high I.Q. do have a potential for uncovering strange/novel insights. It's plausible, but not as a counterweight to the relative disadvantage of a lower I.Q. But if there's a legitimate idea, there's a legitimate study that could shed some light on whether the idea is right. The fact Mr Intelligence Trap man pushes something as a theory and people 'cannot see how anyone would not go along with... raises legitimate questions about why there's no effort at evidence. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: real A.I.
On 27 November 2014 at 23:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote: Nice :) One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact with us. Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means ... :) https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/calvin-and-hobbes-math.jpg?w=676 The one religion that works reliably every time - and probably in every possible universe, too. Tell me more... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
I saw a comment higher up the list to the effect that if you can have intelligence without consciousness, Darwin was wrong. Clearly evolutionary examples show you can have intelligence without consciousness - the development of organisms encodes intelligent responses to the environment. On 28 November 2014 at 10:35, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If consciousness does not effect intelligent behavior and if Darwin's Theory is correct then there is no alternative, consciousness is a spandrel. That assumes human beings and human evolution - and I agree with that application. But it does not show that intelligence could not evolve without human-like consciousness Human-like consciousness? I don't see how you can speak for all humans, the only type of consciousness I have first hand experience with is John Clark-like consciousness. which I take to be a inner narrative. A big part, perhaps the only part, of Intelligence is planing for the future: if this happens then I will do that but otherwise I will do that other thing. How could a computer or a person do that without a inner dialog? Language is auditory. Not always. The language skill you're demonstrating this very second isn't auditory it's visual, you don't even know what my voice sounds like but we're having a conversation nevertheless. Abstract ideas can be represented in images Just like Egyptian hieroglyphics or the sign language that the deaf use. or (per Bruno) numerical relations. As in the language of mathematics. An intelligent might think in three dimensional patterns and not something one-dimensional like language. And when you read a book you can skip large sections, go back and reread something, or go the very end and see how it all turned out before you even know how it started. You imply that any representation is language No not anything, only representations that have a grammar that allows ideas of arbitrary complexity and abstraction to be compactly depicted is a language. A grunt is a representation of pain but without grammar pain is the only information that is conveyed but my finger hurts because I hit it with a hammer while I was helping my friend build his house to replace the one the burned down two days ago uses grammar and contains vastly more information than the grunt. And by the way, the preceding sentence is probably the first time in human history that anyone has written those particular words in that exact sequence, but people have grunted lots of times. There are encryption systems that provide for computations to be performed on data and results returned with ever decrypting the data; so the part of the system doing the calculation never receives any communication that has meaning to it. But the part of the system wanting the computation to be done knows what it means and so does the part that uses the output; the part doing the calculation doesn't know what it means and the part that knows what it means doesn't know how the calculation was done; it's no different with us, we use our brain but we don't understand how it works. I think the thing that separates humans from other animals is that about 100,000 years ago we developed a system that can encode even very abstract ideas into a few simple sounds; this not only enabled collective learning but also enormously magnified the power of individual thought. So do you agree that having an inner narrative is the definition of consciousness, I said nothing about consciousness in the above, I was talking about intelligence something much more restrictive than Bruno's awareness? I am aware of X if I am conscious of it, and I am conscious of it if I am aware of it. And round and round we go. Philosophy and finding synonyms is not the same thing, or at least it shouldn't be. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. Does this mean my Kiwi-designed new $2000 Fysher Pykel fridge is intelligent? Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 November 2014 at 10:41, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. Does this mean my Kiwi-designed new $2000 Fysher Pykel fridge is intelligent? The clue's in the words Kiwi designed :-) Yes, I imagine a fridge can probably react intelligently to input within some very narrow range. So yes it probably has some rudimentary intelligence designed in, probably less than an ant has, but certainly some. And we *know* ants aren't conscious (paging Russell...!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:41 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. Does this mean my Kiwi-designed new $2000 Fysher Pykel fridge is intelligent? Kim I mean, why not call an expensive and highly versatile gadget intelligent? We already attribute competence to gadgets (smartphones) and presumably the more competent the gadget, the more it assumes qualities and capabilities that remind us of ourselves which is probably explicable in modal logic. A Universal Machine recognises another UM, clearly. The only thing missing is the bad breath, the bad philosophy and the need to whinge about everything (presumably Löbian qualities). K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 November 2014 at 10:56, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:41 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. Does this mean my Kiwi-designed new $2000 Fysher Pykel fridge is intelligent? I mean, why not call an expensive and highly versatile gadget intelligent? We already attribute competence to gadgets (smartphones) and presumably the more competent the gadget, the more it assumes qualities and capabilities that remind us of ourselves which is probably explicable in modal logic. A Universal Machine recognises another UM, clearly. The only thing missing is the bad breath, the bad philosophy and the need to whinge about everything (presumably Löbian qualities). Indeed. Unless you're going to make intelligence out to be something only humans and maybe a few animals have then you have to admit that some machines can behave intelligently. Not sure about a fridge but I wouldn't be surprised. But my PC manages to be quite intelligent some of the time, and I doubt it's conscious, i.e. self aware, or with an inner narrative, or whatever the definition is at the moment. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 Nov 2014, at 9:01 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 November 2014 at 10:56, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:41 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 8:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 November 2014 at 22:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You need consciousness to develop intelligence, and you need intelligence to develop competence. IN my humble opinion you don't need consciousness to develop intelligence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. The immune response is certainly more intelligent (in terms of keeping the organism containing it alive) than letting diseases kill it, but I doubt it involves consciousness. Does this mean my Kiwi-designed new $2000 Fysher Pykel fridge is intelligent? I mean, why not call an expensive and highly versatile gadget intelligent? We already attribute competence to gadgets (smartphones) and presumably the more competent the gadget, the more it assumes qualities and capabilities that remind us of ourselves which is probably explicable in modal logic. A Universal Machine recognises another UM, clearly. The only thing missing is the bad breath, the bad philosophy and the need to whinge about everything (presumably Löbian qualities). Indeed. Unless you're going to make intelligence out to be something only humans and maybe a few animals have then you have to admit that some machines can behave intelligently. Yes. I have always felt this, even before I learnt what a UM was. I no longer think in terms of Us (humans) and Them (everything else). Assuming the comp theology obviously, this distinction makes little sense. The more you think about it, the more our arrogant severing of our selves from our environment when taking measurements and making observations is our biggest mistake. How different would things be if we had long ago adopted the view that all that really matters is competence, or skill at doing. What really matters in whether the doer be a human or some other machine? Think like a machine. Machines will surely rate their interest in each other via perceived competency levels. Competency means your ability to use your thinking to interact with your experience in order to survive if not thrive and be happy somehow. Darwin is happy with that. De Bono is happy with that. Bruno is happy with that. I am happy eith that. Nevertheless humans rate each other via the IQ principle which was never designed as a metric for competency, or what we might call, after de Bono operacy. Operacy is not taught at school. There, they only teach and measure literacy (to be able to read the Bible) and numeracy (to be able to calculate how much to tythe the Church). Not sure about a fridge but I wouldn't be surprised. But my PC manages to be quite intelligent some of the time, and I doubt it's conscious, i.e. self aware, or with an inner narrative, or whatever the definition is at the moment. OK, so that makes consciousness truly mysterious and dodgy when you try to account for it via physicalist notions such as material universes containing brains. If you can have intelligence without consciousness then I cannot see what having consciousness adds to being intelligent other than experience. By Occam, you can eliminate consciousness and still have intelligent entities surviving well. They cannot, however be happy. For that, they must have experience which presumably requires consciousness for self-awareness, or the 2nd-tier Löbian thingy, you know K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
LizR wrote: Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding. The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any appreciable effect on galactic dimensions or rotation profiles. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
LizR wrote: I don't understand how this works, so I can't comment on the details. I seem to remember asking for a simple version that a dummy like me can understand - and don't recall seeing it, although maybe I missed it. But in any case the 2nd law isn't a law of physics, it's just what tends to happen given certain circumstances. Say you lose one earring, what are the chances someone will find it, recognised it as yours and mail it to you? Generally rather low, but it could happen, it just relies on an unlikely chain of random factors operating in your favour, to quote Mr Spock. The 2nd law is like that - unlikely things generally failing to happen - on the molecular scale, a zillion times per second. You can't circumvent it unless you can circumvent the maths of probability. Which means that it counts as a law of physics. You seem to want to impose some higher standard of law-likeness on Thermodynamics. Probabilistic laws are perfectly law-like -- just think quantum mechanics. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: The 2nd law is like that - unlikely things generally failing to happen - on the molecular scale, a zillion times per second. You can't circumvent it unless you can circumvent the maths of probability. Which means that it counts as a law of physics. The second law is more fundamental than merely a law of physics. I can imagine some particular universe in the multiverse where the conservation of energy did not hold, according to Norther's theorem a universe where physics changed as a function of time would be like that; and I can imagine some universe in the multiverse where the conservation of momentum did not hold, a universe where physics changed as a function of space would be like that. But the only universe where the 2nd law didn't hold would be a universe of infinite boredom that consisted of nothing but white noise. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I saw a comment higher up the list to the effect that if you can have intelligence without consciousness, Darwin was wrong. I said that and I know of no conclusion that is more obviously true. Clearly evolutionary examples show you can have intelligence without consciousness - the development of organisms encodes intelligent responses to the environment. Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: And we *know* ants aren't conscious And how do we know ants aren't conscious? Because just like dead people they aren't BEHAVING as if they were. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: More likely we will make an AI that is intelligent, is not conscious like a human with an inner narrative but is conscious in some other way which will be very difficult for us to recognize. With the obvious exception of our own, consciousness is not very difficult to recognize, it is IMPOSSIBLE to recognize, and it doesn't matter if it's another human or a computer. All we can recognize is intelligent behavior and then try to make a conclusion from that observation using one of the enumerable theories about consciousness that are available. And all the many consciousness theories are different from each other and all of them work about equally well (or badly). And having no facts that must be fitted to theory is why the profession of consciousness theoretician is so incredibly easy and why they are so common on the internet. However it's hard as hell to find a good intelligence theory because it must be compatible with a astronomical number of very diverse facts, so it's not surprising that intelligence theoreticians are very rare on the internet. Consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:59:42 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote: Al Hibbs, you have once again forgotten to uncheck the cc to sender button before sending which is, as everyone knows, the clearest signal that you are Al Hibbs since no one else who inhabits this list does that because there is no need whatsoever for this. If you are not doing it inadvertently, then you are merely wicked, which is another form of Intelligence. Mr Intelligence Trap needs no evidence to substantiate his theory other than to observe the highly intelligent yet erratic and ill-considered behaviour of people like yourself who prove regularly (and of course, inadvertently) that the Intelligence Trap is alive and kicking. It's not personal Kim. I feel strongly about whatever I'm writing and haven't mastered staying on top of my emotions for the full monty. But listen...your behaviour is much worse, because you persistently express your frustration or pique or whatever that is where you go..by spelling out Al Hibbs...just like that. The fact you do it those times only is sufficient proof you know fully well you are seriously violate the expressed personal preference to maintain a synthetic layer of anonymity. You violate my personal boundary every time you do that. You have no clue what my reasons might be. You may have put me in harm's way. Perhaps I'm being stalked. Or maybe I'm hiding from an abusive estranged husband so get it right you personal space violation monger it's ALICIA. On the subject what's with the girl's name stuck on you? I thought were a woman right through to when I came back. You got a lot more slack due to that. You were disgusting in your treatment to me back then. You persistently issued fallacious assurances of neutrality, you exhibited absolutely zero self reflection even when the abject untruth of this I had to smear under your nose. You savagely attacked me out of nowhere multiply in a sequence despite clear efforts by me to de-escalate things. Then, when I actually left the list as an expression of courtesy and goodwill to you, expressly for that reason, explitly stated. You then followed up my departure by writing a post blatently impregnated with invective that everyone would recognize as targeted on me. You've no class Kim. You're envious or bitter or I don't know what. You don't self reflect. You've got really unrealistic components in play in your self imaging. You are passive aggressive. In the subtitles there are demands for respect and acknowledgements and acts of deference for acccomplishments and status you haven't earned and frankly do not deserve. You are not an authority on creativity. You aren't a fair man. You play a spiteful mean little game with me from a position of complete security and group acceptance completely unthreatened by me as the outsider largely ignored that I freely choose to be.. You've no just cause, no recourse to real and real considerations of self defence. I speak my thoughts the way that I do. I'm prone to getting myself misunderstood. I live with that and self reflect about it and can see that on some level for some reason I do bring it on myself. I see it, so I'm calm with this and accepting. I have no ill feeling, and do not harbour grudges and resent no-one. And intend nothing personal to anyone. Save in the context, strictly that context, if there is a disagreement, about value and how high value is distinguished from low value in the world. That's a theme of the disagreement that I feel with basically the entire list, it's culture, it's behaviour, it's theories, beliefs,, backscratching and letting off the hook...and the ganging up that goes side by side when that sort o thing is present. The ganging up. The bullying, like the way you bully me. The way you violate my personal space, violate my anonymity brandish it, wave it about, through it at me, boomerangs spinning around my head like clubs. I don't what this buys for you, what imagery you get for this when you look in the mirror. But to my eye the imagery is of a weak man, who is sufferering now on the inside because of failure of courage basically more than anything else. You fail still now to have the courage to be decent. You are getting older Kim yet still you have confronted yourself and have not, may not even have begun, the process a lot of people complete while still young. That we exercise first the aspiration then the practice and then begin actually delivery in anger; of being no different in our conduct with others, regardless of whether we are in a position of strength and power or it's the other way around. Feeling little, and thinking little of, the expressions of others their sentiments and judgements about us. Same whether compliments and praise or criticisms and hostility. All of it is fickle and insincere, unless it is clearly measured and distinguishes traits and measured assessments that we ourselves
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 28 Nov 2014, at 1:43 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. John K Clark iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. Evolution has produced all of these things, John. Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town so where else could they have come from? Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
