Re: Positive AI

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:   

On 17 Jan 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker  wrote:
 
 
 
 On 1/17/2018 12:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  
 

  
 On 16 Jan 2018, at 14:29, K E N O  wrote: 
  
  Oh, no! As an media art student, I don’t believe in strict rules oft 
usefulness (of course!). It  was a rather suggestive or maybe even sarcastic 
approach to get unusual thoughts from everything. Maybe I should rephrase my 
question: What is the craziest AI application you can think of?
  
  A long time ago, when “AI” was just an object of mockery, I saw a public 
challenge, and the winner was a proposition to make a tiny robot that you place 
on your head, capable of cutting the hairs "au fur et à mesure”. 
  “AI” is a terrible naming term. “Artificial” is itself a very artificial 
term. It illustrates the human super-ego character. When machines will be 
really intelligent, they will ask for having better users, and social security. 
When they will be as clever as us, they will do war and demolish the planet, I 
guess. 
  Minski is right. We can be happy if tomorrow the machine will have humans as 
pets … 
  There is also a confusion between competence and intelligence. With higher 
competences we become more efficacious in doing our usual stupidities ...
  
 So do you think that competence entails intelligence which entails 
consciousness?

Competence makes intelligence sleepy. And intelligence requires consciousness.
It is a bit like:
Consciousness ==> intelligence ==> competence ==> stupidity



 
 There have been recent discoveries about sleep in animals.  Apparently ALL 
animals need sleep, even jellyfish.  But, there is no really good theory of 
why.  I wonder if your theory can throw any light on this?  I don't think 
there's anything analogous for computers...but maybe if they were intelligent 
and interacted with their environment they would be.


I can only speculate here. Sleep might be needed to “reconstruct the dekstop” 
or something. My older computer makes a 5m nap every 20 minutes! In higher 
mammals, I think that sleep allows dreams, which allows some training of the 
mind, (re)evaluation of past events, etc. But sleep remains still very 
mysterious. Maybe it is the time to get back to heaven, but then we can’t 
remember it, … Don’t take this not too much seriously.
Bruno

One effect of sleep is that apparently, during the quiescence of sleep neurons, 
and many kinds of glial cells as well (if I recall) shrink somewhat in size. 
This opens up trillions of capillary interstitial passages, a hyper fine 
grained capillary network through which toxins can be flushed out and carried 
off from the brain. An interesting mechanism for the last-mile (metaphorically 
speaking) nanoscale trash collection that is vital to long term viability of a 
complex highly metabolizing organ such as a brain. Sleep enables the flushing 
out of toxic by-products from the vast 3D densely packed hot spot of cellular 
metabolism comprising neural tissue.
Sleep probably serves multiple and also orthogonal functions in animals.I agree 
as well, that on some levels it is a deep mystery.
-Chris

 
 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.




-- 
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.
  

-- 
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: Quasars

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 4:04:17 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 3:49:15 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 1:44:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:

 On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:57:14 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:17 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​> ​
>>> I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC, they are 
>>> interpreted as immense BH's with inflowing matter of galactic size to 
>>> account for their brightness, and their redshift, applying Hubble's 
>>> Law, 
>>> indicates they are far removed, closer to the BB than any galaxies 
>>> within 
>>> our observable universe. Question: did galaxies form that early after 
>>> the 
>>> BB to account for the huge inflows of matter and brightness? TIA, AG
>>>
>>  
>> Quasars formed very soon after the Big bang, almost embarrassedly 
>> soon.  A recently discovered quasar called J1342+0928 is 13.1 billion 
>> light 
>> years away and was formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang, and 
>> yet it is powered by a Black Hole of 800 million solar masses. 
>> Astronomers 
>> have trouble explaining how a Black Hole could get  that  big  that  
>> fast 
>> by conventional  stellar evolution, but if from day one the universe 
>> already contained 100 solar mass Black Holes that would help a lot in 
>> explaining how that could happen and maybe  give us a hint at what Dark 
>> Matter is too. 
>>
>
> *Hard to believe it formed that soon and so huge. For it to be that 
> bright, how much mass must be inflowing per unit time, say per second or 
> year?  Is that mass speculated to be from an already formed galaxy? TIA, 
> AG*
>

 From the perspective of classical gravitation it might be thought that 
 the initial singularity fragmented into singularities of black holes in 
 the 
 emergent cosmology. If we think of singularities as topological objects, 
 then their generation or destruction means topology changes. We might then 
 think of the demolition of the initial timelike singularity at time t = 0 
 and the generation of spacelike singularites in Schwarzschild black holes 
 or mass-inflation singularities as an operation that changes topology. 
 Quantum gravity is then a theory described by cobordism. General 
 relativity 
 does not permit this. So it is possible that black holes emerged in the 
 first few Planck units of time in the generation of this cosmology.

>>>
>>> *What's the difference between a timelike and spacelike singularity? 
>>> Also, these BH's are not the result of collapse of massive stars, since 
>>> stars didn't exist at that time. What is the speculation of the cause of 
>>> these BH's? And why are they so bright without any infalling matter? AG*
>>>
>>
>> A spacelike singularity is on a spatial surface, such as with a 
>> Schwarzschild black hole. Such singularities are spatial, occur in the 
>> future of geodesics and do not propagate information into the future. A 
>> timelike singularity is a one dimensional curve that has no spatial extent. 
>> They do propagate information into the future or local future in the 
>> timelike interior of a KN black hole. The singularity that generated a 
>> cosmology may be timelike within some other space or they may be spacelike 
>> as the boundary of the cosmological spacetime. 
>>
>
> *As far as I know, spacelike and timelike apply when comparing TWO events, 
> whether or not they're causally connected. I don't see how these concepts 
> can apply to a single event, such as a BH. AG *
>

Think of points on a Schwarzschild singularity as having a spacelike 
separation. The Kerr singularity has points separated by time, and the 
geometry is a ring. 
 

>
>> The black holes may have been generated in the big bang. The are not 
>> bright in of themselves; they are black holes after all. 
>>
>
> *I know. But they become bright due to infalling matter in accretion disk. 
> Did galaxies form within the first billion years of the BB and then 
> infalling to account for their brightness? Seems unlikely. AG*
>

So far it appears that primordial galaxies appeared before 1 billion years 
after the BB. There are signatures of PopIII stars prior to these as well. 
These might have spawned large black holes. The origin of such early black 
holes is unknown.

LC
 

>  
>
>> Quasars are extreme active galactic nuclei of young galaxies we observe 
>> in the past. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: Quasars

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 3:49:15 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 1:44:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:57:14 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:17 AM,  wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC, they are 
>> interpreted as immense BH's with inflowing matter of galactic size to 
>> account for their brightness, and their redshift, applying Hubble's Law, 
>> indicates they are far removed, closer to the BB than any galaxies 
>> within 
>> our observable universe. Question: did galaxies form that early after 
>> the 
>> BB to account for the huge inflows of matter and brightness? TIA, AG
>>
>  
> Quasars formed very soon after the Big bang, almost embarrassedly 
> soon.  A recently discovered quasar called J1342+0928 is 13.1 billion 
> light 
> years away and was formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang, and 
> yet it is powered by a Black Hole of 800 million solar masses. 
> Astronomers 
> have trouble explaining how a Black Hole could get  that  big  that  fast 
> by conventional  stellar evolution, but if from day one the universe 
> already contained 100 solar mass Black Holes that would help a lot in 
> explaining how that could happen and maybe  give us a hint at what Dark 
> Matter is too. 
>

 *Hard to believe it formed that soon and so huge. For it to be that 
 bright, how much mass must be inflowing per unit time, say per second or 
 year?  Is that mass speculated to be from an already formed galaxy? TIA, 
 AG*

>>>
>>> From the perspective of classical gravitation it might be thought that 
>>> the initial singularity fragmented into singularities of black holes in the 
>>> emergent cosmology. If we think of singularities as topological objects, 
>>> then their generation or destruction means topology changes. We might then 
>>> think of the demolition of the initial timelike singularity at time t = 0 
>>> and the generation of spacelike singularites in Schwarzschild black holes 
>>> or mass-inflation singularities as an operation that changes topology. 
>>> Quantum gravity is then a theory described by cobordism. General relativity 
>>> does not permit this. So it is possible that black holes emerged in the 
>>> first few Planck units of time in the generation of this cosmology.
>>>
>>
>> *What's the difference between a timelike and spacelike singularity? 
>> Also, these BH's are not the result of collapse of massive stars, since 
>> stars didn't exist at that time. What is the speculation of the cause of 
>> these BH's? And why are they so bright without any infalling matter? AG*
>>
>
> A spacelike singularity is on a spatial surface, such as with a 
> Schwarzschild black hole. Such singularities are spatial, occur in the 
> future of geodesics and do not propagate information into the future. A 
> timelike singularity is a one dimensional curve that has no spatial extent. 
> They do propagate information into the future or local future in the 
> timelike interior of a KN black hole. The singularity that generated a 
> cosmology may be timelike within some other space or they may be spacelike 
> as the boundary of the cosmological spacetime. 
>

*As far as I know, spacelike and timelike apply when comparing TWO events, 
whether or not they're causally connected. I don't see how these concepts 
can apply to a single event, such as a BH. AG *

>
> The black holes may have been generated in the big bang. The are not 
> bright in of themselves; they are black holes after all. 
>

*I know. But they become bright due to infalling matter in accretion disk. 
Did galaxies form within the first billion years of the BB and then 
infalling to account for their brightness? Seems unlikely. AG*
 

> Quasars are extreme active galactic nuclei of young galaxies we observe in 
> the past. 
>
> LC
>

-- 
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: Quasars

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/18/2018 2:49 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:



On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 1:44:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:




On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-7, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:35:36 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:57:14 AM UTC-7, John
Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:17 AM,
wrote:

​> ​
I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC,
they are interpreted as immense BH's with
inflowing matter of galactic size to account for
their brightness, and their redshift, applying
Hubble's Law, indicates they are far removed,
closer to the BB than any galaxies within our
observable universe. Question: did galaxies form
that early after the BB to account for the huge
inflows of matter and brightness? TIA, AG

Quasars formed very soon after the Big bang, almost
embarrassedly soon.  A recently discovered quasar
called J1342+0928 is 13.1 billion light years away and
was formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang,
and yet it is powered by a Black Hole of 800 million
solar masses. Astronomers have trouble explaining how
a Black Hole could get  that  big  that  fast by
conventional  stellar evolution, but if from day one
the universe already contained 100 solar mass Black
Holes that would help a lot in explaining how that
could happen and maybe  give us a hint at what Dark
Matter is too.


*Hard to believe it formed that soon and so huge. For it
to be that bright, how much mass must be inflowing per
unit time, say per second or year?  Is that mass
speculated to be from an already formed galaxy? TIA, AG*


From the perspective of classical gravitation it might be
thought that the initial singularity fragmented into
singularities of black holes in the emergent cosmology. If we
think of singularities as topological objects, then their
generation or destruction means topology changes. We might
then think of the demolition of the initial timelike
singularity at time t = 0 and the generation of spacelike
singularites in Schwarzschild black holes or mass-inflation
singularities as an operation that changes topology. Quantum
gravity is then a theory described by cobordism. General
relativity does not permit this. So it is possible that black
holes emerged in the first few Planck units of time in the
generation of this cosmology.

*
*
*What's the difference between a timelike and spacelike
singularity? Also, these BH's are not the result of collapse of
massive stars, since stars didn't exist at that time. What is the
speculation of the cause of these BH's? And why are they so bright
without any infalling matter? AG*


A spacelike singularity is on a spatial surface, such as with a 
Schwarzschild black hole. Such singularities are spatial, occur in the 
future of geodesics and do not propagate information into the future. 
A timelike singularity is a one dimensional curve that has no spatial 
extent. They do propagate information into the future or local future 
in the timelike interior of a KN black hole. The singularity that 
generated a cosmology may be timelike within some other space or they 
may be spacelike as the boundary of the cosmological spacetime.


One should keep in mind these are artifacts of the mathematics in 
general relativity.  There are no singularities.  There are places GR 
breaks down.


Brent



The black holes may have been generated in the big bang. The are not 
bright in of themselves; they are black holes after all. Quasars are 
extreme active galactic nuclei of young galaxies we observe in the past.


LC
--
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.


--
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: Positive AI

['cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List]

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:   
 
 
 On 1/16/2018 11:54 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
  

 
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:   
  
 
 On 1/16/2018 8:55 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
  
 --What is the craziest AI application you can think of? 
  A machine learned pet translator perhaps... they're actually working on that 
app, Amazon amongst others. So, it seems the big players Google as well, are 
running in that race... think of the potential market of pet owners forking 
over their hard earned money to hear what the Google machine is telling them 
their dog is telling them. I can imagine the marketing folks  dreaming about 
that market. As an aside also a commentary on how out of touch, we humans have 
become from the world in which we exist. People already understand dog language 
:) 
 
 Of course teaching the AI requires lots of training examples, so you will need 
people to translate what their dog is saying to create the training examples.  
Google will probably try to get people to do this online, similar to the way 
they got visual identification training examples.  But the really interesting 
point is that not only do people understand dogs, it's also the case that dogs 
understand people.  So when Google's dog->human translate says, "Fido says the 
mailman is here." will Fido be able to listen to that and say, "Rowf" -> 
"That's right."? 
  Brent
  
  

 We might not want to always hear what our animals are saying about us behind 
our backs... I see a potential law suit hehe  :) 
  I believe, only half joking here... that a training set already exists 
somewhat in the public domain. In the ever growing historical repository 
comprised of all those pet videos uploaded online, and that dataset probably 
contains vast numbers of clips of people trying to understand their  pet 
vocalizations as well as dogs (and to a lesser degree more aloof cats) 
listening intently to what their people are saying. In fact I bet that a 
substantial body of raw video feed exists even for more exotic 
human-other-species interactions... say parrots... tegu lizards perhaps...  
cute little rodents.. gold fish... tarantulas... you name it. A vast body of 
historical feed already exists. 

 
 
 If we use that Google translations will turn all dogs into standup comedians.  
:-)
 
 Brent
 
That would be a case of over-fitting on biased data. 
-Chris

-- 
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.
  

-- 
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: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Jan 2018, at 23:10, David Nyman  wrote:
> 
> On 17 January 2018 at 15:41, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 15 Jan 2018, at 16:43, David Nyman > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 15 January 2018 at 13:24, Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> 
>> You raise interesting question, but they are not so easy to answer, and some 
>> of your precision prevent me to answer as they do not fit the precision made 
>> possible by computer science, or at least not yet.
>> 

>>> 
>>> G* proves []p <-> ([]p & p)
>>> G does not prove []p <-> ([]p & p).
>>> 
>>> ​One might say that the machine itself (G) is both restricted to 
>>> 'knowledge' of what it is in the first place capable of believing and, by 
>>> the same token, incapable 'in person' of doubting.
>> 
>> Here I am not sure. Knowledge is given by ([]p , that is by S4Grz). G is 
>> involved only with the 3p-self, and G* is the the 3p-self seen by “god”. 
>> Only the 1p self is unable to doubt. G is the scientist, doubter, modest 
>> Löbian reasoner. But I can make sense, if this was the reason you put the 
>> “knowldedge” and “in person” in quote? Yes, that makes sense.
>> 
>> ​Yes, that's right. ​I wanted to reiterate the conjunction or intersection 
>> of (3p) belief and (1p) epistemic indubitability as the criterion of 
>> self-knowledge (aka introspection); therefore by extension, of 
>> consciousness. In my remarks to Brent, I described consciousness as the 
>> first-person apprehension of its own states by a computationally-defined 
>> 'mental agent', implying epistemic truths ​*​about itself​*, and more 
>> broadly about the boundaries of its own physical and temporal situation​, 
>> such truths being ​​by the same token not directly communicable.
>> 
>> It's no simple matter to 'scale up' imaginatively, from inferences with 
>> respect to formal propositional logic, to the possible relation between 
>> brains, bodies and their generalised environments. The best I can do (as 
>> I've been suggesting to Brent) is the conception of a mental agent in terms 
>> of computational complexes, such that these complexes carry or track the 
>> relevant dispositions and relations that effectively construct the agent's 
>> 'physical constitution'. In turn such 'dispositional' computations, *at the 
>> relevant substitution level*, emulate propositional or intentional 
>> 'attitudes' (aka beliefs) whose epistemic entailments constitute a 
>> categorically distinct, first-personal knowledge, or conscious apprehension, 
>> of the agent's material, concrete or substantive 'world'.
>> 
>> It might seem puzzling (and indeed it should) why any such conjunction of 
>> physical action,
> 
> (Again, you say something more related to []p & <>t & p, than []p & p, but 
> that is OK (if not, I would not understand the mention of “physical” unless 
> you are already restricting the atomic proposition of the logic to the 
> semi-computable or semi-decidable (sigma_1) one.
> Sorry for such details.
> 
> 
>> which seems to proceed of its own accord and with its own 'causality', with 
>> what might therefore seem to  be merely 'epiphenomenal' or adventitious 
>> first-person knowledge, should be the case. Mere appeal to 'evolutionary' 
>> explanations won't really do, as on closer inspection such accounts rely on 
>> purely third-personal processual logic, not its putative first-personal 
>> counterpart.
> 
> OK. And I have said things going along this line. Yet, this might not be 
> entirely true. I do think that the richness of the human consciousness is 
> related to the fact that we share a very long (sheaf, "diffracted beam") of 
> computations. It is a long computation, and it is deep: it cannot be 
> compressed locally, which gives us the impression that there is some 
> origin/beginning of the human story. That is a 3p feature which add to the 
> first person impression.
> 
> ​I agree. I didn't elaborate in the interests of being short, Nevertheless, 
> the evolutionary 'selection' argument must, necessarily, rest ultimately on 
> extrinsic or 3p behaviour (again at the appropriate 'substitution' level).

Yes, the evolution theory is entirely based on (digital) mechanism, which is, 
like all scientific theories, a 3p theory. But there is a slight difficulty due 
to the fact that the “physical” will appear to be a 1p plural mode. Yet, it is 
locally (in each duplicated population of individuals) conceived as a 3p 
notion. In fact “3p-physicalness” is local 1p plural, even the quantum waves. 



> And on physical-reductionist assumptions, all such behaviour must necessarily 
> be a proxy for 'fundamental physical law'. Hence my movie/TV analogy was 
> intended to suggest that the existence of a consistent 'mental agency' 
> implies the 'epistemic selection' of an (at least) equally consistent and 
> 

Re: Positive AI

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Jan 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/17/2018 12:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Jan 2018, at 14:29, K E N O >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Oh, no! As an media art student, I don’t believe in strict rules oft 
>>> usefulness (of course!). It was a rather suggestive or maybe even sarcastic 
>>> approach to get unusual thoughts from everything.
>>> Maybe I should rephrase my question: What is the craziest AI application 
>>> you can think of?
>> 
>> 
>> A long time ago, when “AI” was just an object of mockery, I saw a public 
>> challenge, and the winner was a proposition to make a tiny robot that you 
>> place on your head, capable of cutting the hairs "au fur et à mesure”.
>> 
>> “AI” is a terrible naming term. “Artificial” is itself a very artificial 
>> term. It illustrates the human super-ego character. When machines will be 
>> really intelligent, they will ask for having better users, and social 
>> security. When they will be as clever as us, they will do war and demolish 
>> the planet, I guess.
>> 
>> Minski is right. We can be happy if tomorrow the machine will have humans as 
>> pets …
>> 
>> There is also a confusion between competence and intelligence. With higher 
>> competences we become more efficacious in doing our usual stupidities ...
> 
> So do you think that competence entails intelligence which entails 
> consciousness?

Competence makes intelligence sleepy. And intelligence requires consciousness.

It is a bit like:

Consciousness ==> intelligence ==> competence ==> stupidity



> 
> There have been recent discoveries about sleep in animals.  Apparently ALL 
> animals need sleep, even jellyfish.  But, there is no really good theory of 
> why.  I wonder if your theory can throw any light on this?  I don't think 
> there's anything analogous for computers...but maybe if they were intelligent 
> and interacted with their environment they would be.

I can only speculate here. Sleep might be needed to “reconstruct the dekstop” 
or something. My older computer makes a 5m nap every 20 minutes! In higher 
mammals, I think that sleep allows dreams, which allows some training of the 
mind, (re)evaluation of past events, etc. But sleep remains still very 
mysterious. Maybe it is the time to get back to heaven, but then we can’t 
remember it, … Don’t take this not too much seriously.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Quasars

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 1:44:00 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:57:14 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 5:17 AM,  wrote:

 ​> ​
> I recently viewed a documentary on Quasars. IIRC, they are interpreted 
> as immense BH's with inflowing matter of galactic size to account for 
> their 
> brightness, and their redshift, applying Hubble's Law, indicates they are 
> far removed, closer to the BB than any galaxies within our observable 
> universe. Question: did galaxies form that early after the BB to account 
> for the huge inflows of matter and brightness? TIA, AG
>
  
 Quasars formed very soon after the Big bang, almost embarrassedly 
 soon.  A recently discovered quasar called J1342+0928 is 13.1 billion 
 light 
 years away and was formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang, and 
 yet it is powered by a Black Hole of 800 million solar masses. Astronomers 
 have trouble explaining how a Black Hole could get  that  big  that  fast 
 by conventional  stellar evolution, but if from day one the universe 
 already contained 100 solar mass Black Holes that would help a lot in 
 explaining how that could happen and maybe  give us a hint at what Dark 
 Matter is too. 

>>>
>>> *Hard to believe it formed that soon and so huge. For it to be that 
>>> bright, how much mass must be inflowing per unit time, say per second or 
>>> year?  Is that mass speculated to be from an already formed galaxy? TIA, AG*
>>>
>>
>> From the perspective of classical gravitation it might be thought that 
>> the initial singularity fragmented into singularities of black holes in the 
>> emergent cosmology. If we think of singularities as topological objects, 
>> then their generation or destruction means topology changes. We might then 
>> think of the demolition of the initial timelike singularity at time t = 0 
>> and the generation of spacelike singularites in Schwarzschild black holes 
>> or mass-inflation singularities as an operation that changes topology. 
>> Quantum gravity is then a theory described by cobordism. General relativity 
>> does not permit this. So it is possible that black holes emerged in the 
>> first few Planck units of time in the generation of this cosmology.
>>
>
> *What's the difference between a timelike and spacelike singularity? Also, 
> these BH's are not the result of collapse of massive stars, since stars 
> didn't exist at that time. What is the speculation of the cause of these 
> BH's? And why are they so bright without any infalling matter? AG*
>

A spacelike singularity is on a spatial surface, such as with a 
Schwarzschild black hole. Such singularities are spatial, occur in the 
future of geodesics and do not propagate information into the future. A 
timelike singularity is a one dimensional curve that has no spatial extent. 
They do propagate information into the future or local future in the 
timelike interior of a KN black hole. The singularity that generated a 
cosmology may be timelike within some other space or they may be spacelike 
as the boundary of the cosmological spacetime. 

The black holes may have been generated in the big bang. The are not bright 
in of themselves; they are black holes after all. Quasars are extreme 
active galactic nuclei of young galaxies we observe in the past. 

LC

-- 
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.