Re: relevant probability distribution
Hi Saibal, > > As I said I agree with you. But do you really mean a measure defined > > on a set of computer programs, or a set of computer program *states*? > I think that you can derive one from the other. I have thought about this > before, and I now think that the observer should associate himself with a > (to himself unknown) program, or better, a set of programs, that could > generate him. > > E.g. there exists a program that only calculates me and nothing else. This > program e.g. could compute me in an infinite dream. Many such (very complex) > programs must exist. I think that these programs define our identities (or > vice versa, but then not uniquely). Now, if conscious objects correspond to > programs then you don't have the paradox that any clock or lookup table has > intelligence. The fact that I don't live in my own personal universe, but > that my universe is generated by a simpler one, suggests that simpler > programs have larger probabilities. > > If you now have an a priory probability over the set of all programs, you > can compute (in principle) the probability that I will observe a certain > outcome if I perform a certain experiment. At least you can formulate this > question in a mathematical unambiguous way. I have difficulty with the concept of many distinct programs, each representing an individual conscious entity. My understanding of modern physics is that the concept of an isolated individual is essentially obsolete, in that nothing can be defined without relation to everything else. As a result, surely the underlying "program" for each must be similarly connected, so that in fact an individual physical object is simply a concentration of processes operating in one part of the program? The significance of this is that the paradox of intelligent objects doesn't arise at all. I work on the assumption that your program is synonymous with universal awareness (the abstract form of consciousness), and that intelligence would be the result of local information-processing systems. Partly because of the view of everything being inter-related, I'm uncomfortable with a sharp, intelligent/non-intelligent distinction, and have no problem with a mechanical object expressing a very low degree of "intelligence". Indeed, anything which responds to stimuli could be seen in this way, including a rock undergoing thermal expansion. However, an object can only become self-aware once the processing centre is reasonably complex, and based on sufficient local inputs to define a boundary to the region of the observer; this, I guess, would be the manifestation of a closed (or at least self-referent) processing loop within the program. As I understand your view, it by-passes the paradox by introducing arbitrariness, and any approach of this type seems to me to result in more problems. At what point in evolution did an organism first become intelligent? Do we then assume that a qualitatively different faculty was introduced? If so, how? These sorts of questions seem to be the result of over-reductionism, of separating gradations into artificial categories. (Of course, being a palaeontologist, I spend much of my time doing just that, but never mind!) All the best, Joe - Department of Earth Sciences University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EQ Phone: ( +44 ) 1223 333400 Fax: ( +44 ) 1223 333450
Re: JOINING posts
Dear All, I've been lurking for a while while I try to figure out something useful to contribute, but figured you should at least know I'm here... I'm a postdoctoral research fellow at Cambridge (UK), working in palaeontology - specifically, the early evolution of various invertebrate groups, and the relationship of physiochemical environmental factors to evolutionary patterns. I also have an outside interest in such matters as self-organised criticality, in relation to the origin and evolution of life. I have a slightly mathematical background, in that I intended to pursue theoretical physics before discovering as an undergrad that I enjoyed looking at fossils even more. I have practically no background in computing. My interest in this area lies primarily in the philosophical perspective, and I admit, in a somewhat less rigorous style than I've experienced here. Saibal invited me to this list after reading some comments on another message board discussing whether information merely describes physicality, or actually defines it. My approach to the area is largely non-mathematical, involving mainstream philosophy, and a large pinch of oriental philosophical/religious aspects combined with parapsychology. As you can imagine, it has been difficult trying to usefully find a way into the discussions! As a brief introduction to the sorts of things I've been reading, try: Penrose, R. The emperors's new mind. Capra, F. The Tao of Physics Dennett, D. Consciousness Explained Evolution books by Steve Jones, Dawkins, Gould etc., as well as a large number of specialised papers on Proterozoic and early Phanerozoic evolution. Complexity and chaos-based books, including those by Kauffman, Lewin and Gleick Various oriental texts, but particularly the Wen Tzu, Tao Te Ching, poems of Li Po, "Cultivating Stillness" David-Neel, A. With mystics and Magicians in Tibet Plus several of the "classic" books on philosophy - Hume, Berkeley, Descartes, and anything else I can find, for background. For the parapsychological side, try the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (very mixed content, but some definitely interesting bits - I recommend browsing) As you can tell, this is a slightly unorthodox selection. However, I am, like you, a professional scientist, so please try to think of it merely as a different approach to the same problems, rather than a frivolous pursuit to be immediately dismissed! I look forward to the point when I can follow your arguments fully enough to be able to join in... All the best, Joe Botting - Department of Earth Sciences University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EQ Phone: ( +44 ) 1223 333400 Fax: ( +44 ) 1223 333450
