Re: From Atheism to Islam
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the > > way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation". > More precisely what I am saying is consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed. > > > This "explanation" begs the question > If the chain of "why" questions extends far enough the question is *always* begged because there are only 2 possibilities, the chain of why questions extends to infinity and never ends, or it ends in a brute fact and there is no "why" to explain it. You may not find either possibility to be entirely satisfactory but reality doesn't care if you like it or not, that's just the way things are. > > > Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". That's not all, there is also the issue of defining "defining". I said it before I'll say it again, definitions are derivative, real knowledge comes from examples not definitions. > > > What > > does that even mean? Mean? That word is unfamiliar to me, so please use other words to explain the word "mean". And then use more words to explain the words you used to explain the word "mean". And then use yet more words to explain the words you used to explain the word "mean". And then use even more words to explain the words you used to explain the words you used to explain the word "mean". And then. So why isn't language just random noise? It's certainly not because of definitions, it's because of examples from the real world. I point to a roughly cylindrical food and say "banana" and children get the idea. In fact if you ask a child "what is a banana?" they won't say "a berry produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa", instead they will just point to one. > > > Where do you draw the line between intelligent > > and non-intelligent processing? Not everything is separated by a line, some things are separated by a fuzzy blob. A 70 pound man is undoubtedly thin, a 700 pound man is undoubtedly fat, and yet there is no sharp line between fat and thin. There is not a exact instant where day turns into night, and yet there is a difference between day and night that is as clear as, well, day and night. > > > Let me guess: intelligent processing > > is the kind that generates consciousness. > No you guessed wrong. I judge that intelligent processing is the sort of thing that if done by a man Telmo Menezes would make a noise with his mouth that sounds like "that man is smart". And yes it's a judgement call and judgement can be wrong, but it's the only tool we have. > > > Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of > > consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about it), > > so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero. I agree, so why is it so many on this list want to talk about nothing except consciousness when all such discussions lead precisely nowhere? I'll tell you why, because it's easy, no consciousness theory can every be proven wrong. Intelligence theories on the other hand are devilishly hard and that's why few want to talk about those even though they do lead somewhere. > > >> > >> What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining >> >> how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made in just >> the >> last few years. > > > > > Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network > models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of > magnitude more computational power and training data that we have now. > Even if improved hardware were the entire answer (it's not) how do you figure that's not enormous progress? > > Progress is being made, but it has been very slow. If progress in AI is slow it's because they keep moving the goal posts and say that true AI is whatever computers aren't good at *YET*. B a ck in 1997 after a computer became the world's best chess player chess grand master Hans Berliner said: " What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity . Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go" In 2008 Milton N. Bradley said: " In sharp contrast [to chess] the best computer Go programs are still mired at just beyond an advanced beginner's level ", and to play GO " immense scale makes the application of "standard" techniques infeasible even on supercomputers. [Go] Requires a real breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence which has not yet been achieved. " http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html But things have changed since 2008, back then intelligence was needed to win at GO but in 2016 a computer became the world's best GO player, so that means GO no longer requires intelligence. > > Evolution is a theory on th
Re: From Atheism to Islam
On 2/20/2017 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries. As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else, They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something that makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of galaxies together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes up 69% of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to accelerate. And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter and energy that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed. There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is 10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory and observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to say we really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is almost as confusing. If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't matter? Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully, consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed intelligently. I know that your position is that information processing is nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation". This "explanation" begs the question already. Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing is the kind that generates consciousness. No, intelligent processing it that which leads to useful activity toward a goal. That's why consciousness has to be consciousness OF a world in which action is possible. It only exists in a context. For me, the interesting question is whether there can be intelligence without consciousness, or more accurately can there be intelligence which is conscious in a different way. We can see from Big Blue, Watson, and deep neural nets that there can be intelligence based different kinds of information processing. I suspect this means there would be different kinds of consciousness associated with them - but how could we know and what would it mean? John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not to create robots that had general intelligence, lest we inadvertently create conscious beings to whom we would have ethical obligations. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: From Atheism to Islam
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries. >> >> >> >> > >> As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current >> theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many >> things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the >> universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else, > > > They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something that > makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of galaxies > together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes up 69% > of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to accelerate. > And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter and energy > that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed. > > There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum > Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is > 10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory and > observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to say we > really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is almost as > confusing. > >> > >> If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't >> >> matter? > > > Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully, > consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed > intelligently. I know that your position is that information processing is nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation". This "explanation" begs the question already. Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing is the kind that generates consciousness. Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about it), so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero. You make it worse by introducing ill-defined concepts. > What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining > how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made in just the > last few years. Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of magnitude more computational power and training data that we have now. Progress is being made, but it has been very slow. It's a hard problem. I've worked in this field both in academia and industry, for what it's worth. >>> The study of intelligence, now that's important! >> >> >> > >> That is a statement of faith. Gizmo worshiping. > > > At least 3 times a week for the last 5 years somebody on this list has > accused me of being religious, apparently in the hope that I'll burst into > tears and cry myself to sleep. It's not going to happen, I can't talk for the others, but I have no interest in making you feel bad. I'm just pointing out dogmatic thinking. >> >> > >> Yes, it's important in >> >> a sense. I too am interested in having medical breakthroughs, freedom >> >> from labour and all the nice things that AI can bring. > > > It's important even if you're only interested in philosophical problems, > such as why did Evolution bother to make conscious animals at all. Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We know nothing about consciousness. >> I don't quite understand why an omnipotent being >> >> would "want" anything, He should already have it. Nevertheless the >> >> religious say God does want certain things and they know exactly >> precisely >> >> what they are and they insist on telling us about it; and they also >> insist >> >> God can't get what He wants on His own, we have to help the poor fellow >> >> achieve His aims. >> >> > >> You are describing Abrahamic religions. I don't believe in them either. > > > I don't think the > Hindu religion > is significantly less stupid. There are some forms of Buddhism and Taoism > that aren't stupid but they aren't religions, they don't say anything about > God, don't say faith is a virtue, and don't even claim they are revealing > something new about the world, instead they are doing something much more > modest, they are giving personal advice; they are saying this is a way to be > happy. Not the only way, maybe not the best way, just a way. Ok, so you only recognise something as a religion if you think it's stupid. Not hard to win an argument with that move... >> > >> I think you are not interested in what Bruno has to say. There's >> nothing wrong with that, but it's just a personal preference of yours. > > >