Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:27:30 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: 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're still in the stack constructing from your idea evolution cannot detect conscious (I think because we can't, is your basis for this, but no matter). It's very hard to see how your idea stands up to even the most high level and trivial thought experiment. So I'll select something like that for you give your high level answer. Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality. Now we are objective reality and as such we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its delivery has been negatively impacted. Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities with higher loading on the full suite of being conscious than some others. Let's now pick these two gentlemen up shove them through the door of Bruno's Tardis, and dump them somewhere sometime the forces of natural selection are considerably ramped up for and between humans. If that activity on the menu of the Challenge-of-the-Niche. Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery. Ergo consciousness has felt the long arm of natural selection poking right through with specific, precision interest in specific components, specially in terms of efficiency on some measure. And issued selective dictats accordingly. John you need a strong answer to this. It isn't legitimate to try to answer by quibbling details. Because there's infinitely many alternatice scenarios. Please, a strong answer. -- 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 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R 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. It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously reasonable accepted I wasn't avoiding comment on this. It's just that I think it's a possibility you may have lost the thread of what has been said. Easy to happen over a day and night. The recap is: - data indicating the polar opposite of the expectation arising from incumbent knowledge - early on you saw this was the implication rappeared to understand what issues were brought into play by that. - There's not a lot more that's in the logic, and first time next to say. - You are right first time round, the incumbent theory says diminishing dark matter reflects expansion of the universe. Or a galaxy. - But that has already been said now, explicitly or very directly by the implication of saying the same thing from the other direction, that the new data is saying dark matter diminishing reflects a contraction of the universe. Or a Galaxy. It's the polar opposite so saying one is saying the other. And it is for that reason I hesitate to reply because I don't know what new thing you wish to say. -- 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.
Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, but what makes you think they're not conscious? When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at least not anymore. At one time Evolution was the only way complex objects could get make, but that stopped being true 545 million years ago during the Cambrian Explosion when, more than 3 billion years after life first appeared, Evolution finely managed to make the first primitive brain. Evolution has produced all of these things, John. Evolution made us, but we made the iPhone; Evolution has severe limitations and could never have made a iPhone, it never even managed to make a macroscopic part that moved in 360 degrees. John K Clark 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. -- 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 Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality. OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't detect subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next generation. we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its delivery has been negatively impacted. And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know that is if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer, this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the intelligence/consciousness link is controversial. I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not the way we wish they were. Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is) then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness too. Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery. Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence. John you need a strong answer to this. If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is not valid then you are conscious. Now ask yourself if you are conscious or not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough? 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 27 Nov 2014, at 18:49, meekerdb wrote: 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. Not necessarily. The reality in this case might be the reality of your existence, or your consciousness, or God, or whatever painful or blissful, or of (N,0,+,*). You don't need, at this stage, infer that you have a self separated from anything. It is my current intuition that consciousness does not need Löbianity. But Löbianity makes what you say unavoidable, and leads to a physical, physical environment, histories, and hopefully (assuming some conjectures about the Z and X logics) tensor products and interaction. This is equivalent to belief in self-consistency, How so? By a slight extension of Gödel's *completeness* theorem, which asserts that a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model (in the sense of logicians: i.e. a structure which satisfies the theorem). It is usually proved for first-order theories, but it applies also to a large collection of effective extensions of second-order logic (in fact it applies to any consistent effective extensions of PA, where effective means that the proofs are checkable. Such models model the notion of reality (where the first occurrence of model is used in the logician sense, and the second in the physicists sense). Note that the belief in self-consistency, or in a model satisfying your beliefs, a reality, makes you inconsistent, strictly speaking (by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem), so we should need the ([]p p), or ([]p t p) variants of G/G*, to be exact. Such beliefs are no more communicable/justifiable, nor even really expressible. It explains why it is very hard to talk about consciousness, like about reality/truth/God, despite it is what we are the most sure of. 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. :-) No doubt ... :-) Bruno 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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 27 Nov 2014, at 22:35, LizR 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. Keep in mind that I distinguish intelligence from competence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. But that part of my brain might not behave intelligently. It behaves with a high competence. I am not sure if there is any intelligence there. Evolution has developed (relatively) intelligent behaviour in animals and plants that are probably not conscious. Well, with my definitions, if it is intelligent, it is conscious. If not, it is just competence, may be involving some consciousness at a higher level (I don't know), but the competence (wherever it comes from) does not need intelligence, nor even consciousness. Indeed, when you are quite competent at a task, you can almost do it without thinking, without consciousness, without intelligence. Intelligence is needed when things go awry: for example when you car does *not* start, at morning. 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. I doubt it requires intelligence. You will not say that the immune system of someone immune-deficient is stupid, you will say it is broken, like a machine (in the 19th century sense of course). Keep in mind that I completely distinguish intelligence from competence. Intelligence is a very high level abstract ability, almost an attitude by a person (first person) which makes it able to be confronted with a novel situation and able to generate some *new* competence. Like Brent said, it is a sort of meta-competence. All universal machines have it, at least potentially. But all universal machine can lost it very easily, notably when confined in non creative task or non universal tasks, or by being punished when wrong, perhaps. Babies, children, virgin universal machines are typically intelligent and incompetent. At the start. Unfortunately they can easily evolve toward stupidity+competence, a nasty mixture which often leads to harms. 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. 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 Friday, November 28, 2014 4:37:40 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality. OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't detect subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next generation. You are also not responding here, to the line above, but to the paragraph that came afterward. Which you have deleted. There is not redundancy for legitimate deletion of this kind. The argument is arranged through paragraphs with each paragraph containing ONE strong component of relevance with everything else just for illustrative purposes. It is obvious what the strong component is each paragraph. What was the strong component of relevance in the lines above? You just have to ask what is necessary to preserve a logical flow through the points. The first paragraph just show differentials in consciousness are trivially demonstrated in any number of commonplace everyday examples. We don't even need to go to evolution. we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its delivery has been negatively impacted. And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know that is if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies You've deleted my argument John. And what you reply to here, just as what you replied to above, is totally irrelevant the logical argument that you are supposed to be trying to provide a strong answer to. I don't want to think. You've not answered the logic so far and you've deleted probably the most key section. You continued this basic approach below, but anyway it's lost be here so I've deleted below. Please, a strong answer John. You need a fresh reply command so you benefit from the full sequence of argument. Please...identify the strong component in each paragraph. By simply asking what component is essential to preserve a logical sequence. First paragraphs are always less essential because they introduce and so on. Give a strong answer as the rational man of science you say, and I will nod - that you are. It's a 10 minute work at most John. Either you have a strong answer you do not. -- 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 04:27, John Clark wrote: 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). Some have testable consequences. You don't need to understand the step 3, to understand the math parts, and the testability of the theory extracted. In the Brussel's thesis I present the UDP (the universal dovetailer *paradox*- only to provide the motivation for the definition in the math part). (I was warned against philosophers allergic to thought experiments!). In Lille, that was not a problem, as there were no literary philosopher in the jury. 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. I think the contrary. Intelligence is basically very simple. It requires no more than a universal machine. Well, at least two, to be exact. A couple child, mother, but in an abstract sense, in which the mother can be the arithmetical truth/reality (the structure (N, 0,+,*)), and the child any universal programs defined and executed, relatively to oracles or to other universal programs. Consciousness is perhaps not that difficult. Once you accept it is invariant for some recursive permutation at some description level, then the incompleteness theorem explains it, I think. We got an explanation of why self-consistency *appears* obvious to us, but is incommunicable/non-justifiable, unless we invoke the notion of truth, which is explained to be non-expressible, and makes consciousness non definable. The math provides a general theory of qualia, and it is testable because the quanta appears to be the first person plural sharable of it. The math shows in particular that a reflexive and symmetrical structure appears at the place it should appear in case QM is correct. What *is* really difficult is the competence things, and its development, as they grow on many incomparable lattices of incomparable abilities. There are many results in theoretical computer science, initiated with the work of Putnam, Blum, Gold, Case Smith, Royer, Oherson, ... and many others. There are many beautiful theorems, like the theorem of Blum and Blum which answers the question about what can be immeasurably more competent than a machine? The answer is: a couple of machines! There also equivalent speed-up theorem for the inference inductive abilities, and in general the more errors machine can do, the more competent they can become. There are no universal learning machine (universal competence) unless you accept machine doing unbounded number of errors, and with the ability to change their mind infinitely often, even for equivalent theories (that is they change their mind without experimental reason). Those are theories of intelligence, in a sense, as they are metatheories on learning strategies (competence development). It studies the effect of intelligence of the many possible grows of competence. It is necessarily a non constructive theory of intelligence, but the contrary would have been astonishing, and ring false with the absolute non definability of the first person by the first person. Intelligence is not programmable, except trivially by a meta-program like Add and multiply and help yourself. And hope, for enough memories notably. You can find references by searching in the biblio of the Lille thesis and the bibliography of the french long text. 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/
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
Bruno, It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world, maybe with a little fuzziness. Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality. OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't detect subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next generation. we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its delivery has been negatively impacted. And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know that is if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer, this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the intelligence/consciousness link is controversial. I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not the way we wish they were. Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is) then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness too. Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery. Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence. John you need a strong answer to this. If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is not valid then you are conscious. Now ask yourself if you are conscious or not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough? 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. -- 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 Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: You've not answered the logic so far Give me some logic and I'll give you a answer. I thought you were asking how Evolution produced consciousness but apparently that's not the question you wanted answered. Maybe I missed it but as far as I can tell that's the only question you asked. True you then said that Evolution could have produced consciousness even if intelligence and consciousness were unrelated because consciousness makes for better intelligent actions, which is so self contradictory I didn't believe I needed to refute it. and you've deleted probably the most key section. And in this response to your latest post I deleted 6 paragraphs, anyone who wishes to read them in their entirety can find them in about .9 seconds so I see no need to repeat them all here, but I will summarize; you go on and on and on about how I avoided answering your key question but nowhere do you say exactly what that key question is. You wrote 6 paragraphs, couldn't you add just one more sentence with your question? Please, a strong answer John. Give me a strong clear question and I'll either give you a strong clear answer or I'll say I don't know. So tell me, what exactly is your question? 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 Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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. I think the contrary. Intelligence is basically very simple. Then you are by far the greatest genius the human race has ever produced and you know how to the human brain can do smart things and can teach (program) a computer to do the same. Making a AI is the last invention humans will ever make so you should rule the world by now, or at least be a multi-trillionaire. Are you? Consciousness is perhaps not that difficult. On that I agree but unfortunately nobody can make a dime off a consciousness theory, but find a good intelligence theory and the entire world will radically change overnight. 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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply I got (not from you) -- 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 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, but what makes you think they're not conscious? Because the deisgners didn't include a consciousness module, of course! :-) When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? One possible answer - because evolution is working to a different set of criteria. Another possible answer - because evolution used trial and error over millions of years rather than designing what was needed to do a specific job. Another possible answer - because evolution used different materials, and a different architecture (wetware operates very differently from electronic hardware). -- 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
Thank you Liz, Bruce and John for your comments. I am grateful that you are forcing me to explain myself in simple terms, and this is exactly what I need to do. I am definitely not an expert in this field. I consider myself more like a student and I am eager for constructive and informed feedback. As John pointed out, the Second Law is not like the other laws of Physics. It is more like a law of Logic or Mathematics. It appears to be as inevitable as the value of Pi ... until you realize that Pi is tied to a flat plane. And breaking the Second Law when certain conditions are met is not so bad. In fact it make the universe more interesting, not less interesting as John suggested. Maxwell-Boltzmann's distribution is closely associated with the Second Law. Let me try to explain in very simple terms how this distribution is obtained. Starting with the _uniform_ distribution (microstates are evenly distributed in phase space) one can show that the velocity distribution of gas molecules along any one degree of freedom, is _Normal_. i.e., the mean velocity vx (or vy or vz) is 0 and the standard deviation is a function of temperature. From this, one can show that the Velocity = Sqrt(vx^2+vy^2+vz^2) is Chi-Square and that Energy follows Maxwell's distribution. You can look up details about Maxwell at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution. Boltzmann modified Maxwell's distribution (to produce the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) by adding an exponential factor i.e., Maxwell * exp(E/kT) where E = potential energy, to account for the potential energy that gas molecules acquire when they rise in a gravitational field. The Boltzmann factor varies with altitude because the potential energy E varies. This brings us to why Loschmidt was wrong in suggesting that energy can be extracted from a Maxwellian gas in a gravitational field. Density also varies with altitude and the Boltzmann factor disappears when the distribution is renormalized to account for the change in density. In other words the Maxwellian term remains constant with altitude. This means that the temperature is constant with altitude. Hence a Maxwellian gas complies with the Second Law. Continuing the analogy, Pi = 3.14159 the plane is flat. Physics is Classical and Geometry is Euclidean. Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which makes their statistics non-Maxwellian. The term describing potential energy is embedded in the Fermi-Dirac formula. It is not added as a simple factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics Going through the exercise of renormalization, one discovers that Fermion temperature is not constant with altitude. The analogy is Pi=/= 3.14159, the surface is curved and Physics is Quantum. This reasoning also applies to Bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Experimental data on thermoelectric materials obtained at Caltech and extensive simulations by myself and others have confirmed the above. This is a complex topic and I welcome the assistance of experts in the field of Quantum Thermodynamics to either confirm or disprove these ideas. Please do not hesitate to forward this email to anyone who you think might provide enlightenment. Best George Levy On 11/27/2014 6:33 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto: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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 29 Nov 2014, at 2:42 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, Smart I take to mean highly competent in a way that a human can understand and benefit from. I don't think this exhausts the possibilities of being smart. My iPad exists relative to me on the level of a trusted slave-labourer. When Siri asks me to pay her for the service of finding a great Vietnamese restaurant within walking distance, I will attribute consciousness to her - given that Apple isn't pulling my leg somehow. but what makes you think they're not conscious? They may well be. I can certainly hold that thought in my mind and give it good consideration. To me this question exists on much the same level as have extraterrestrials visited the Earth? Well it's entirely possible, but highly improbable given the evidence available. It's also possible that we haven't seen anything like all of the evidence for or against that yet. I recently read somewhere that Google engineers have admitted that Google now does things they themselves have not directly authorised nor fully understand the need for. That, if true, is super-smart. And just a little scary. If something as autonomous as that is happening without an ego or an experiencing self observing itself doing these things then we have already eliminated the need for consciousness in the MV. In fact there is precisely NO need for consciousness at all if intelligence (IQ = horsepower; grunt of the engine) alone is enough to invent a self-driving car or an orbital space station. Yet, we do have consciousness - whether we need it or not. This, to my mind leads straight to the mind-body problem that you seem eternally ready to deny. Intelligence is like the colour of your eyes or your height or the dimensions of your schwannstücker. It's fixed and immutable. You have an engine upstairs of a certain horsepower, that's all. Can't change that. Intelligence is more like low-level consciousness, without Löbianity. Still, this is immensely effective and powerful. Ant colonies. Forests. Bee hives. Corporations. Flying cars. All hugely intelligent and adapted to the environment in which they arose. Conscious? Could be, could be. Basically, I am undecided on that. Anyone who is decided on that on the basis of available evidence has fallen headlong into the Intelligence Trap. When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, Not really. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to emotions. It works like this: emotions are the qualia. Qualia are events. A non-conscious subject cannot differentiate events happening inside from events happening outside. That somewhat unnecessary distinction requires consciousness. An amoeba simply reacts to events, and learns strategies for survival from them. That's intelligence. so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? Because intelligence is easy to produce. Emotions are hard to produce. It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Evolution always produces intelligence, even when it delegates the evolutionary process to the accelerated-intelligent entities (us) and there appears to be no end to how far intelligence can evolve. If Google becomes any more competent I think they should stick it in the White House and let it run the planet for us while we all romp naked through the heather and smell the wildflowers...and other bizarre behaviour of conscious beings. You are definitely right when you say that evolution cares not a fig about consciousness. Evolution is not itself an experiential subject of any sort, so that's hardly surprising. Evolution is the name given by conscious beings to a rhythmic, harmonic process of adaptation observed happening over time. Evolution means simply things persist or they don't, given their behaviour. Consciousness would then fit in as a new kind of adaptive behaviour - from evolution's perspective. Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at least not anymore. PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their atheist/physicalist talkfests At one time Evolution was the only way complex objects could get make, but that stopped being true 545 million years ago during the Cambrian Explosion when, more than 3 billion years after life first appeared, Evolution finely managed to make the first primitive brain. Freudian slip. Here you smuggle your (as yet unacknowledged)
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
LizR wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply I got (not from you) It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all context your point becomes obscured. Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question? 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
Is this a violation of the 2nd law, or is it an outcome of the 2nd law that doesn't take the expected form? (I would expect a violation of the law to involve something anti-entropic going on, which would look to us like time running backwards). On 29 November 2014 at 10:48, George gl...@quantics.net wrote: Thank you Liz, Bruce and John for your comments. I am grateful that you are forcing me to explain myself in simple terms, and this is exactly what I need to do. I am definitely not an expert in this field. I consider myself more like a student and I am eager for constructive and informed feedback. As John pointed out, the Second Law is not like the other laws of Physics. It is more like a law of Logic or Mathematics. It appears to be as inevitable as the value of Pi ... until you realize that Pi is tied to a flat plane. And breaking the Second Law when certain conditions are met is not so bad. In fact it make the universe more interesting, not less interesting as John suggested. Maxwell-Boltzmann's distribution is closely associated with the Second Law. Let me try to explain in very simple terms how this distribution is obtained. Starting with the *uniform* distribution (microstates are evenly distributed in phase space) one can show that the velocity distribution of gas molecules along any one degree of freedom, is *Normal*. i.e., the mean velocity vx (or vy or vz) is 0 and the standard deviation is a function of temperature. From this, one can show that the Velocity = Sqrt(vx^2+vy^2+vz^2) is Chi-Square and that Energy follows Maxwell's distribution. You can look up details about Maxwell at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution. Boltzmann modified Maxwell's distribution (to produce the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) by adding an exponential factor i.e., Maxwell * exp(E/kT) where E = potential energy, to account for the potential energy that gas molecules acquire when they rise in a gravitational field. The Boltzmann factor varies with altitude because the potential energy E varies. This brings us to why Loschmidt was wrong in suggesting that energy can be extracted from a Maxwellian gas in a gravitational field. Density also varies with altitude and the Boltzmann factor disappears when the distribution is renormalized to account for the change in density. In other words the Maxwellian term remains constant with altitude. This means that the temperature is constant with altitude. Hence a Maxwellian gas complies with the Second Law. Continuing the analogy, Pi = 3.14159 the plane is flat. Physics is Classical and Geometry is Euclidean. Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which makes their statistics non-Maxwellian. The term describing potential energy is embedded in the Fermi-Dirac formula. It is not added as a simple factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics Going through the exercise of renormalization, one discovers that Fermion temperature is not constant with altitude. The analogy is Pi=/= 3.14159, the surface is curved and Physics is Quantum. This reasoning also applies to Bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Experimental data on thermoelectric materials obtained at Caltech and extensive simulations by myself and others have confirmed the above. This is a complex topic and I welcome the assistance of experts in the field of Quantum Thermodynamics to either confirm or disprove these ideas. Please do not hesitate to forward this email to anyone who you think might provide enlightenment. Best George Levy On 11/27/2014 6:33 PM, John Clark wrote: 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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 29 November 2014 at 06:04, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Nov 2014, at 22:35, LizR 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. Keep in mind that I distinguish intelligence from competence. Large parts of our own brains behave intelligently - e.g. processing visual images - without being conscious. But that part of my brain might not behave intelligently. It behaves with a high competence. I am not sure if there is any intelligence there. Of course this depends on how one defines intelligence... I suspect that some people have defined in consciousness as part of intelligence. Which is OK as long as we're all agreed that's what we're talking about. E.g. does intel involve intentional behaviour etc? Or does it just involve (say) coming up with solutions to problems? The former probably involves consciousness, the second can be achieved by evolution, and presumably was, somewhere, before anything at all was conscious. -- 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?
I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply I got (not from you) It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all context your point becomes obscured. Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question? 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. -- 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 Friday, November 28, 2014 6:34:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: You've not answered the logic so far Give me some logic and I'll give you a answer. I thought you were asking how Evolution produced consciousness but apparently that's not the question you wanted answered. Maybe I missed it but as far as I can tell that's the only question you asked. True you then said that Evolution could have produced consciousness even if intelligence and consciousness were unrelated because consciousness makes for better intelligent actions, which is so self contradictory I didn't believe I needed to refute it. I don't know what you are talking about I didn't say any of these points. You may have more than one discussion you are in mixed together there. I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect consciousness (because we can't, I think you said) u What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of difference between the same traits in two individuals, if those traits are being selected. It doesn't matter something is physically buried in the brain, or undetectable by humans at the present time,. Natural Selection will just favour the more overall efficient traits for that purpose. The same goes for consciousness . What is the problem you have understanding which of your ideas I am referring to. This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution cannot detect consciousness. I refer to it explicitly in that first at the top. So you seem to be saying you don't know what my post is disproving and what idea of yours it refers to. Inspite of the idea in question is your big idea that you've talked for ages. Inspite also of the fact I explicitly reference at the top of the first post. In spite of the fact the actual reason that you keep deleting also makes it pretty obvious what is being disproven and you've deleted probably the most key section. And in this response to your latest post I deleted 6 paragraphs, Why? When I stated you need all the reasoning in the same place so you understand and have the opportunity to come up with answer that s strong. Why do something like that? It's inflammatory. You're not fussing around deleting peoples post. I've actually taken the trouble to refute something here. And actually asked you not to delete the argument which is short. Instead answer it. Do it inline if you want or at the bottom. But leave my argument there as well. So we don't have to do another round like this. Please. You know what idea is of yours. You know where my argument is. Please reply to my arugment and lesve it in so other people can see what I do and what you do. Just in case one of us is playing with poo here. Come on don't fuck me around like this. I put effort in. About you or key idea. I'm just asking for a response I the normal way, that doesn't involve you deleting my argument and claiming you don't know what my argument is. Leaving it hard for me or anyone to compare and see. You don't do this in any other interactions. And your big is squarely falsified john. Fair and square. Go to the post and give your counter argument if you have one. Like you do all your posts. -- 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'm with Liz - I suspect that George is using a specific version of entropy that is (say) only applicable for canonical or microcanonical ensembles, and that the second law actually survives because the system is in neither ensemble. But I could be wrong - its been far too many years since I studied such basic statistical mechanics, and I don't have the time nor energy to revisit the topic now :(. Cheers On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:15:18AM +1300, LizR wrote: Is this a violation of the 2nd law, or is it an outcome of the 2nd law that doesn't take the expected form? (I would expect a violation of the law to involve something anti-entropic going on, which would look to us like time running backwards). On 29 November 2014 at 10:48, George gl...@quantics.net wrote: Thank you Liz, Bruce and John for your comments. I am grateful that you are forcing me to explain myself in simple terms, and this is exactly what I need to do. I am definitely not an expert in this field. I consider myself more like a student and I am eager for constructive and informed feedback. As John pointed out, the Second Law is not like the other laws of Physics. It is more like a law of Logic or Mathematics. It appears to be as inevitable as the value of Pi ... until you realize that Pi is tied to a flat plane. And breaking the Second Law when certain conditions are met is not so bad. In fact it make the universe more interesting, not less interesting as John suggested. Maxwell-Boltzmann's distribution is closely associated with the Second Law. Let me try to explain in very simple terms how this distribution is obtained. Starting with the *uniform* distribution (microstates are evenly distributed in phase space) one can show that the velocity distribution of gas molecules along any one degree of freedom, is *Normal*. i.e., the mean velocity vx (or vy or vz) is 0 and the standard deviation is a function of temperature. From this, one can show that the Velocity = Sqrt(vx^2+vy^2+vz^2) is Chi-Square and that Energy follows Maxwell's distribution. You can look up details about Maxwell at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution. Boltzmann modified Maxwell's distribution (to produce the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) by adding an exponential factor i.e., Maxwell * exp(E/kT) where E = potential energy, to account for the potential energy that gas molecules acquire when they rise in a gravitational field. The Boltzmann factor varies with altitude because the potential energy E varies. This brings us to why Loschmidt was wrong in suggesting that energy can be extracted from a Maxwellian gas in a gravitational field. Density also varies with altitude and the Boltzmann factor disappears when the distribution is renormalized to account for the change in density. In other words the Maxwellian term remains constant with altitude. This means that the temperature is constant with altitude. Hence a Maxwellian gas complies with the Second Law. Continuing the analogy, Pi = 3.14159 the plane is flat. Physics is Classical and Geometry is Euclidean. Fermions follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle which makes their statistics non-Maxwellian. The term describing potential energy is embedded in the Fermi-Dirac formula. It is not added as a simple factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics Going through the exercise of renormalization, one discovers that Fermion temperature is not constant with altitude. The analogy is Pi=/= 3.14159, the surface is curved and Physics is Quantum. This reasoning also applies to Bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Experimental data on thermoelectric materials obtained at Caltech and extensive simulations by myself and others have confirmed the above. This is a complex topic and I welcome the assistance of experts in the field of Quantum Thermodynamics to either confirm or disprove these ideas. Please do not hesitate to forward this email to anyone who you think might provide enlightenment. Best George Levy On 11/27/2014 6:33 PM, John Clark wrote: 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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part, but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent as a group than individually. I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement in a mind/matter duality. Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 29 Nov 2014, at 2:42 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, Smart I take to mean highly competent in a way that a human can understand and benefit from. I don't think this exhausts the possibilities of being smart. My iPad exists relative to me on the level of a trusted slave-labourer. When Siri asks me to pay her for the service of finding a great Vietnamese restaurant within walking distance, I will attribute consciousness to her - given that Apple isn't pulling my leg somehow. but what makes you think they're not conscious? They may well be. I can certainly hold that thought in my mind and give it good consideration. To me this question exists on much the same level as have extraterrestrials visited the Earth? Well it's entirely possible, but highly improbable given the evidence available. It's also possible that we haven't seen anything like all of the evidence for or against that yet. I recently read somewhere that Google engineers have admitted that Google now does things they themselves have not directly authorised nor fully understand the need for. That, if true, is super-smart. And just a little scary. If something as autonomous as that is happening without an ego or an experiencing self observing itself doing these things then we have already eliminated the need for consciousness in the MV. In fact there is precisely NO need for consciousness at all if intelligence (IQ = horsepower; grunt of the engine) alone is enough to invent a self-driving car or an orbital space station. Yet, we do have consciousness - whether we need it or not. This, to my mind leads straight to the mind-body problem that you seem eternally ready to deny. Intelligence is like the colour of your eyes or your height or the dimensions of your schwannstücker. It's fixed and immutable. You have an engine upstairs of a certain horsepower, that's all. Can't change that. Intelligence is more like low-level consciousness, without Löbianity. Still, this is immensely effective and powerful. Ant colonies. Forests. Bee hives. Corporations. Flying cars. All hugely intelligent and adapted to the environment in which they arose. Conscious? Could be, could be. Basically, I am undecided on that. Anyone who is decided on that on the basis of available evidence has fallen headlong into the Intelligence Trap. When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, Not really. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to emotions. It works like this: emotions are the qualia. Qualia are events. A non-conscious subject cannot differentiate events happening inside from events happening outside. That somewhat unnecessary distinction requires consciousness. An amoeba simply reacts to events, and learns strategies for survival from them. That's intelligence. so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? Because intelligence is easy to produce. Emotions are hard to produce. It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Evolution always produces intelligence, even when it delegates the evolutionary process to the accelerated-intelligent entities (us) and there appears to be no end to how far intelligence can evolve. If Google becomes any more competent I think they should stick it in the White House and let it run the planet for us while we all romp naked through the heather and smell the wildflowers...and other bizarre behaviour of conscious beings. You are definitely right when you say that evolution cares not a fig about consciousness. Evolution is not itself an experiential subject of any sort, so that's hardly surprising. Evolution is the name given by conscious beings to a rhythmic, harmonic process of adaptation observed happening over time. Evolution means simply things persist or they don't, given their behaviour. Consciousness would then fit in as a new kind of adaptive behaviour - from evolution's perspective. Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at least not anymore. PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their atheist/physicalist talkfests At one time Evolution was the only way
Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?
Richard Ruquist wrote: I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? Richard Space is expanding uniformly. But the rate is slow when measured over small distances, so the force pulling two nearby points apart is very small -- easily overcome by the gravitational attraction between large nearby bodies, such as the stars that make galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These hold their size and do not expand with the geral expansion. It is only more distant, non-bound galaxies that move apart. Bruce On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply I got (not from you) It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all context your point becomes obscured. Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question? 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 11/28/2014 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2014, at 18:49, meekerdb wrote: 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. Not necessarily. The reality in this case might be the reality of your existence, or your consciousness, or God, or whatever painful or blissful, or of (N,0,+,*). You don't need, at this stage, infer that you have a self separated from anything. The reality of your existence sounds like begging the question to me. Your existence is an inference or model in your thoughts. I don't think reality or existence can have any meaning without the contrasting possibility of not reality and non-existence. Brent It is my current intuition that consciousness does not need Löbianity. But Löbianity makes what you say unavoidable, and leads to a physical, physical environment, histories, and hopefully (assuming some conjectures about the Z and X logics) tensor products and interaction. This is equivalent to belief in self-consistency, How so? By a slight extension of Gödel's *completeness* theorem, which asserts that a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model (in the sense of logicians: i.e. a structure which satisfies the theorem). It is usually proved for first-order theories, but it applies also to a large collection of effective extensions of second-order logic (in fact it applies to any consistent effective extensions of PA, where effective means that the proofs are checkable. Such models model the notion of reality (where the first occurrence of model is used in the logician sense, and the second in the physicists sense). Note that the belief in self-consistency, or in a model satisfying your beliefs, a reality, makes you inconsistent, strictly speaking (by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem), so we should need the ([]p p), or ([]p t p) variants of G/G*, to be exact. Such beliefs are no more communicable/justifiable, nor even really expressible. It explains why it is very hard to talk about consciousness, like about reality/truth/God, despite it is what we are the most sure of. 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. :-) No doubt ... :-) Bruno 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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/28/2014 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2014, at 04:27, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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). Some have testable consequences. You don't need to understand the step 3, to understand the math parts, and the testability of the theory extracted. In the Brussel's thesis I present the UDP (the universal dovetailer *paradox*- only to provide the motivation for the definition in the math part). (I was warned against philosophers allergic to thought experiments!). In Lille, that was not a problem, as there were no literary philosopher in the jury. 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. I think the contrary. Intelligence is basically very simple. It requires no more than a universal machine. Well, at least two, to be exact. A couple child, mother, but in an abstract sense, in which the mother can be the arithmetical truth/reality (the structure (N,0,+,*)), and the child any universal programs defined and executed, relatively to oracles or to other universal programs. I don't think that's enough. Intelligence must be more than the mere possibility of learning, it must include the motivation to learn and to act. Without a value system there is no reason to learn and all knowledge is equally valuable - like the knowledge obtained by video camera. Brent Consciousness is perhaps not that difficult. Once you accept it is invariant for some recursive permutation at some description level, then the incompleteness theorem explains it, I think. We got an explanation of why self-consistency *appears* obvious to us, but is incommunicable/non-justifiable, unless we invoke the notion of truth, which is explained to be non-expressible, and makes consciousness non definable. The math provides a general theory of qualia, and it is testable because the quanta appears to be the first person plural sharable of it. The math shows in particular that a reflexive and symmetrical structure appears at the place it should appear in case QM is correct. What *is* really difficult is the competence things, and its development, as they grow on many incomparable lattices of incomparable abilities. There are many results in theoretical computer science, initiated with the work of Putnam, Blum, Gold, Case Smith, Royer, Oherson, ... and many others. There are many beautiful theorems, like the theorem of Blum and Blum which answers the question about what can be immeasurably more competent than a machine? The answer is: a couple of machines! There also equivalent speed-up theorem for the inference inductive abilities, and in general the more errors machine can do, the more competent they can become. There are no universal learning machine (universal competence) unless you accept machine doing unbounded number of errors, and with the ability to change their mind infinitely often, even for equivalent theories (that is they change their mind without experimental reason). Those are theories of intelligence, in a sense, as they are metatheories on learning strategies (competence development). It studies the effect of intelligence of the many possible grows of competence. It is necessarily a non constructive theory of intelligence, but the contrary would have been astonishing, and ring false with the absolute non definability of the first person by the first person. Intelligence is not programmable, except trivially by a meta-program like Add and multiply and help yourself. And hope, for enough memories notably. You can find references by searching in the biblio of the Lille thesis and the bibliography of the french long text. 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
Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On 11/28/2014 12:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, but what makes you think they're not conscious? Because the deisgners didn't include a consciousness module, of course! :-) Or maybe because John (and Bruno and me and probably you) use different definitions of conscious. Is it: 1) Awareness = appropriate goal-directed response to some aspects of the surroundings 2) Intelligence = learning and adapting behavior based on experience 3) Using symbolic reasoning (language) = to decide among hypothetical actions 4) Having an inner narrative? Brent When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? One possible answer - because evolution is working to a different set of criteria. Another possible answer - because evolution used trial and error over millions of years rather than designing what was needed to do a specific job. Another possible answer - because evolution used different materials, and a different architecture (wetware operates very differently from electronic hardware). -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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.
Hi Brent I seem to remember saying that I thought perhaps consciousness is something like awareness of yourself and your environment and asking if you had a better definition a couple of days ago. Did you reply? I don't recall seeing anything. If not - any ideas? On 29 November 2014 at 13:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/28/2014 12:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, but what makes you think they're not conscious? Because the deisgners didn't include a consciousness module, of course! :-) Or maybe because John (and Bruno and me and probably you) use different definitions of conscious. Is it: 1) Awareness = appropriate goal-directed response to some aspects of the surroundings 2) Intelligence = learning and adapting behavior based on experience 3) Using symbolic reasoning (language) = to decide among hypothetical actions 4) Having an inner narrative? Brent When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? One possible answer - because evolution is working to a different set of criteria. Another possible answer - because evolution used trial and error over millions of years rather than designing what was needed to do a specific job. Another possible answer - because evolution used different materials, and a different architecture (wetware operates very differently from electronic hardware). -- 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. -- 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 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the space of say our galaxy intact. Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of us. And if the latter, how would we know.? The expansion of the universe doesn't include bound systems, like atoms or galaxies. If it was purely a scale expansion that applied to everything in existence we couldn't of course know about it (probably...depending on the exact details of how it worked...) GR posits that space-time is a continuum, which means that any part of it is able to expand indefinitely, so it isn't adding more space at any particular point. It's probably gives a more accurate picture to assume space is infinite (or at least finite but unbounded) and that the objects in it - above a certain scale - are moving apart at a uniform rate, i.e. that the separation velocity increases uniformly with distance apart. -- 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 29 Nov 2014, at 1:37 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Brent I seem to remember saying that I thought perhaps consciousness is something like awareness of yourself and your environment and asking if you had a better definition a couple of days ago. Did you reply? I don't recall seeing anything. If not - any ideas? Consciousness is what makes qualia possible. There are no qualia without consciousness. Producing qualia is what consciousness does. So consciousness is the field in which qualia exist. A quale is merely an event that I notice. Everything experienced carries a value which goes into my personal lookup table. I can then quickly recognise stuff the next time it comes along. So already, we can see that the purpose of consciousness is to accelerate awareness via embedded patterns of recogntion: memory. Intelligence on it's own cannot encode enough information quickly enough to aid survival. It's too slow. an amoeba has intelligence but the poor bloody things get swallowed by paramecia all the time. They just don't learn. Consciousness revs the engine at a higher rate so the knowledge bedding-down process happens a whole lot quicker. So, I prefer to define what consciousness is by what it does. I don't think there is one word that covers it. 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.
I don't think there's a single definition of consciousness because I think there are different kinds, as I indicated below. Brent On 11/28/2014 6:37 PM, LizR wrote: Hi Brent I seem to remember saying that I thought perhaps consciousness is something like awareness of yourself and your environment and asking if you had a better definition a couple of days ago. Did you reply? I don't recall seeing anything. If not - any ideas? On 29 November 2014 at 13:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/28/2014 12:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 29 November 2014 at 04:42, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Jones: Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing intelligence without consciousness. iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. etc. If you believe all these things are smart then fine, but what makes you think they're not conscious? Because the deisgners didn't include a consciousness module, of course! :-) Or maybe because John (and Bruno and me and probably you) use different definitions of conscious. Is it: 1) Awareness = appropriate goal-directed response to some aspects of the surroundings 2) Intelligence = learning and adapting behavior based on experience 3) Using symbolic reasoning (language) = to decide among hypothetical actions 4) Having an inner narrative? Brent When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? One possible answer - because evolution is working to a different set of criteria. Another possible answer - because evolution used trial and error over millions of years rather than designing what was needed to do a specific job. Another possible answer - because evolution used different materials, and a different architecture (wetware operates very differently from electronic hardware). -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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 11/28/2014 7:31 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 29 Nov 2014, at 1:37 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Brent I seem to remember saying that I thought perhaps consciousness is something like awareness of yourself and your environment and asking if you had a better definition a couple of days ago. Did you reply? I don't recall seeing anything. If not - any ideas? Consciousness is what makes qualia possible. There are no qualia without consciousness. Producing qualia is what consciousness does. So consciousness is the field in which qualia exist. A quale is merely an event that I notice. Everything experienced carries a value which goes into my personal lookup table. I can then quickly recognise stuff the next time it comes along. So already, we can see that the purpose of consciousness is to accelerate awareness via embedded patterns of recogntion: memory. Intelligence on it's own cannot encode enough information quickly enough to aid survival. It's too slow. an amoeba has intelligence but the poor bloody things get swallowed by paramecia all the time. They just don't learn. Consciousness revs the engine at a higher rate so the knowledge bedding-down process happens a whole lot quicker. So, I prefer to define what consciousness is by what it does. I don't think there is one word that covers it. Kim So it's recall of things similar to perceived things. That's similar to Jeff Hawkins idea except he says perceptions enter consciousness when they don't match predictions: your brain is continuously making predictions and only what's new and unique rises to consciousness. 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: Edge: Myth of A.I.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect consciousness It can't and neither can we. (because we can't, I think you said) The reason isn't because of us, it's just that neither we nor Evolution nor anything else can detect consciousness other than our own, we can only detect actions. If Evolution can detect it then so can we and so can the Turing Test, and if Evolution can't then none of them can. What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of difference between the same traits in two individuals, Only if those different traits produce different actions. If a intelligent but non-conscious animal behaves differently than a intelligent and conscious animal then Evolution can detect that and so the Turing Test. And Evolution will favor whichever behavior is smarter, and if I'm correct and you can't have intelligence without consciousness then that would make Evolution's choice easy. Natural Selection will just favour the more overall efficient traits for that purpose. The same goes for consciousness . Exactly, otherwise you and I would not be conscious. This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution cannot detect consciousness. It can't. you seem to be saying you don't know what my post is disproving That is exactly correct, I don't know what your post is disproving, certainly not that Evolution can not see consciousness. Go to the post and give your counter argument if you have one. Give me a argument that Evolution can see consciousness and I'll either give you a counterargument or concede and thank you for correcting my error, but so far all I've heard is that consciousness makes a animal behave differently, something I already knew MUST be true or Evolution would have never produced it. And if it effects behavior then the Turing Test must work for consciousness too because lack of consciousness implies lack of intelligence and that implies lack of intelligent actions. 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 29 Nov 2014, at 10:08 am, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part, but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent as a group than individually. I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement in a mind/matter duality. Richard Do you want to put up a new thread about this? I am deeply interested in groupthink and see it as largely unacknowledged. Don't know about the mind/matter duality entanglement, but hey, we have to get this Theory of Everything in by Christmas so go for it, I say. The topic branches nicely. There is the notion of reward and discipline within the group and the whole pecking order. The fact is, most humans act with a tribal mind - always have, always will. Until Kurzweil and the Google robotics work out how to reprogram us. We always regard the people from across the river with suspicion because we are the eternal hunter-gatherers. We haven't even left the forest and savannah in our minds yet and behave accordingly. Humans on their own tend to regard others with less suspicion due to their needing stuff that only belonging to a group offers. There is the whole emergent thing of the group behaving as you say, more intelligently (or competently, exhibiting adaptive behaviour both within and without) which accounts for the enormous value of being a good and compliant clan member rather than the elephant who walks alone in the forest and gets shot by the poacher. Margaret Thatcher said something about this. She said something like there are only two power structures: governments and families. Dynasty, in other words. GroupThink is about winning better at evolution, 14 heads are better than one, but then everyone has a different perspective so someone has to crack the whip occasionally to stop the bickering. Then the Prophet descends and suddenly everyone is connected to something wonderful and supernatural and that's what the group now live and die for so really it has been a waste of time for the individuals within group but a bonanza for the religion that is bolted onto them. Something... 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.
Kim Jones Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at least not anymore. PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their atheist/physicalist talkfests I’ve never heard of Meyers but I've read lots of books by Krauss and every book Dawkins ever wrote, and none of them ever said anything even close to that, in fact my statement that until brains were invented Evolution was the only way complex objects could get built is just a paraphrase of what Dawkins wrote. At one time Evolution was the only way complex objects could get make, but that stopped being true 545 million years ago during the Cambrian Explosion when, more than 3 billion years after life first appeared, Evolution finely managed to make the first primitive brain. Freudian slip. There was no slip Freudian or otherwise, I deliberately used a anthropomorphic metaphor and will continue to do so because anthropomorphism can be a valuable mental tool if used carefully, and I did. You appear to be assuming the need for consciousness right at the outset. You are saying that evolution had a purpose right from the start which was to introduce consciousness somehow. Don’t be a insulting ass. You cannot even assume that evolution has any goal or purpose at all Thank you Captain Obvious for those words of wisdom. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to emotions. Yes a AI would need emotion but that’s the easy part. I don’t know where people got the crazy idea that emotion was hard, maybe by watching too much Star Trek and the philosophy of Spock and Mr. Data. Evolution must have found it easy to make structures like the limbic system in our brain because it figured out how to make one over 350 million years ago. The limbic system seems to have a lot to do with fear, love, hate and sexual drive. It's our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it only started to get ridiculously large about one million years ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics. If nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence only much much later, I don't see why the opposite would be true for our computers. so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we make the same sort of thing? Because intelligence is easy to produce. It would be very hard for me but If it's easy for you then make a AI and become the world’s first trillionaire. Emotions are hard to produce. I can write code that causes a computer to experience a emotion, pain. It tries to avoid having a certain number in one of its registers regardless of what sort of input the machine receives, and if that number does show up in that register then the machine will stop whatever its doing and immediately change it to another number. Unfortunately unlike code that could make a AI this will not make me one dime because it’s so simple about nineteen million people already did it decades ago. 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.
