<div dir="ltr">See below .....<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Colin Hales <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:col.hales@gmail.com" target="_blank">col.hales@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail-m_-6175656256271836382gmail-m_1991262750099475285h5"><div><br></div></div></div><div><div>Whatever the universe is made of, you and I and the rest of it are all made of it.</div><div>Whatever the universe is made of, it is capable of creating an observer (scientists) inside it. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>### It occurred to me that "conscious" observers (i.e. experiencing qualia) could be qualitatively different from digital simulations of minds, even if their behavior was indistinguishable. Of course we do not know much about the subject, and have to use intuition rather than more explicit knowledge. Let's then examine our intuitions and try to identify boundary conditions under which they might be true.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's consider a neural network, capable of reading the alphabet, being shown pictures of a letter. Furthermore, this network is built from a very high resolution scan of a human who reads. The fidelity of the simulation is arbitrarily high but it is a digital simulation - one not using quantum phenomena or other forms of analog computation.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's run this network a hundred times from one starting point, feeding it the same input, for example the letter A. Obviously, it will produce the same output - "I see the letter A". Do we have a human mind there, reading the letter a hundred times?</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know. The run in a digital computer consists of operations on bitstrings - input, processing, output, all of that can be described by a single finite bitstring. Each of the runs is equivalent to a re-examination of the same bitstring. If the identity of indiscernibles holds, then all the runs are in fact analyzing a single mathematical object. The same pertains to runs simulating a human hit with a baseball bat - all the runs are equivalent to a single bitstring. Is there a human screaming a hundred times in agony in your computer, or is he screaming once, or is it just unfeeling numbers, a digital ghost devoid of qualia?</div><div><br></div><div>I find it difficult to think that a single mathematical object can experience qualia every time it is examined with the use of a digital computer.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's continue our experiments. The human simulation will reliably read "A" even if you bit-flip a single simulated molecule in a simulated synapse - the way the human brain is built, you cannot affect a high level quale, such as perceiving a letter, by introducing a small amount of noise below some threshold. The simulated digital mind will be similarly resistant to digital noise introduced at that level. In fact, you could bit-flip every single synapse in the mind, which is equivalent to a brief epileptic seizure, and still get the same reading, slightly delayed. You could generate a large number of specific, non-identical instances of this digital noise and use them to run the network a hundred times. Each of the runs would be the equivalent to a different bitstring, a hundred different mathematical objects. Do we have a human reading "A" or being hit with a bat a hundred times here, or not?</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know. If all you need to generate consciousness is to calculate a bitstring according to a digital program then yes, there are a hundred instances of a feeling human here. But there is something off here. In the experiment without digital noise, identity of indiscernibles makes it difficult for me to claim there were multiple separate instances of consciousness. How could a single bit flip, completely incapable of changing the reported experience ("I see the letter A"), manage to generate separate instances of consciousness in the experimental runs?</div><div><br></div><div>My guess here is that digital noise alone cannot trigger separate instances of perceiving qualia in digital computational runs. Such experiments look at the properties of idealized, platonic forms, built of finite numbers of elements. I guess that finite mathematical objects are qualitatively different from our physical reality. On a metaphysical level, I would surmise that observable physics contains mathematical infinities. This is of course just an idle act of faith on my part, not any well-formed type of knowledge. I don't understand infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, so my hunch about our QM world being built of infinities is just pattern-matching, not inference.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's continue our experiments. We download out simulation into a hundred physical copies of the human brain. Every neuron, every synapse and every atom is in the same corresponding spot in all copies. We show them the letter A by stimulating their optic nerves and all produce the output "I see the letter A". Using our advanced monitoring hardware we verify that the physical noise at the level of individual neurons is similar to the digital noise introduced by out bit flip in the previous experiment. Do we have a hundred humans here thinking separate conscious thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div>Most of us would say yes. A hundred physically existing human brains, generating the known observable correlates of thinking - EEG patterns, synapse activations, producing verbal output - that's a hundred conscious thoughts experiencing qualia, or else no human is conscious.</div><div><br></div><div>We have three sets of experiments on similar entities yielding different intuitions about the entities. What has changed between the sets?</div><div><br></div><div>As I hinted at above, first two sets are reducible to finite bitstrings (i.e. can be completely recorded and predicted by manipulation or properties of finite bitstrings). Whether the third set can be described by finite bitstrings would depend on the ultimate physical nature of reality. If quantum-mechanical physical objects (a bit of a pleonasm, isn't it) are indeed defined by mathematical objects that are not equivalent to finite bitstrings, such as real numbers, uncomputable numbers, or others, then an analog computer such as a human brain or quantum computer would be qualitatively different from a digital computer, in an irreducible way.</div><div><br></div><div>For any human brain you could produce a digital simulation that over at least some time span would behave identically to the physical instantiation, and even retain an identical high-level information processing structure. If there is an irreducible difference in the mathematical objects underpinning the analog/human and the digital simulation, it might be possible for metaphysical zombies to exist.</div><div><br></div><div>My argument is not constructed to support dualism in the usual sense, it is not a critique of physicalism, and it goes off at a tangent to the zombie literature I am familiar with. Rather, I am trying to organize my thinking about modal realism. I am definitely a physicalist when it comes to the hard problem of consciousness but then I am also a modal realist when it comes to metaphysics. I do believe that physical existence is a member of the ultimate ensemble of mathematics but then our physical existence may use more complicated mathematics than can fit in our minds. Or our digital computers.</div><div><br></div><div>I intuit that digital objects exist outside of time, isolated from our time-like reality, like some other platonic mathematical forms. We do not interact with them in the same way as we do with physical objects, we merely examine their existence. But we interact with the mathematical objects that make up our physical reality, flowing through infinities of time-like correlated states, and our consciousness is how higher mathematics feels from the inside. I am modestly inclined to believe it but I am not quite sure. Maybe merely embedding a model of a platonic mathematical object in our physical computers imbues such object with new properties? The mind boggles.<br></div><div><br></div><div>On a more practical level, if there are digital p-zombies, it means it's morally OK to shoot NPCs in digital computer games, no matter how life-like are their pleadings. Or perhaps my intuition is wrong, and little programs running reinforcement learning could be tormented souls.</div><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Rafal</div></font></span></div>
</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>=======================<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">=======================<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Hi
Rafal,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I
start by expunging hidden memes in your observations.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b>HIDDEN MEME 1: That ‘ISMS’ have any part in this science I am trying to
discuss.<span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify">That assumption
that any characterisation of anything in terms of “isms” constitutes any kind
of scientific claim. I don’t need to. It plays no part in any discussion I have
and it goes nowhere. It solves nothing. I can’t/won’t say anything about any
kind of ‘ism’. Nor do I think doing it says anything useful about the particular
problem of the subjective life of any AI instantiation. Sorry. I can’t. I’m not philosophically
equipped and I never will be. It’s all irrelevant. Whatever you say about any
ism, you can merely change your mind about what the prefix+ism means and defeat
it as any kind of science proposition. It’s not science. I don’t care about it.
AFTER science makes real AGI (without needing any ‘ism’ informing any design or
testing, as usual) we’ll be able to retrofit some combination of isms that fits
the results and even then nobody will be any better off. A whole bunch of
philosophers will be able to do the ‘told you so’ dance. So what? It changes
nothing. Philosophy has no authority as science or in it (as a determinant of scientific
knowledge).<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b>HIDDEN MEME 2: That the word ‘metaphysics’ has any part to play in this
discussion.<span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify">Basically the
word metaphysics has been used for 2000 years to create a false position about
the scientific accessibility of an underlying reality that gives rise to an
observer. It was invented by stone-age thinkers that had no modern physics, neuroscience or computers. The term is used to defeat any attempt at scientific
accounts of an underlying reality …. and that’s basically all bullshit
sophistry. You <b>can</b> do it. You can
study an underlying reality with a computer (humans can’t do it). But it
creates a whole new category of epistemic claims and the central evidence basis
for it is the prediction of and nature of an observer as a primary requirement.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b>HIDDEN MEME 3: “ </b><b><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">For any human brain you
could produce a digital simulation that over at least some time span would
behave identically to the physical instantiation ….” </span><span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify">This is the
bogus belief meme from hell. YES you can produce such a simulation. NO it is
not any instance of artificial intelligence. Mistaking the map for the
territory right there. As per my original bell’s inequality posting. This is
the big one. Mistaking the increasing accuracy of a simulation of X in the eyes
of a presupposed observer with an instance of the function of the original
modelled thing. Wrong. Bad mistake. This meme has had the entire area of AI
beguiled since day 1 of AI. And there is absolutely ZERO natural law that says
that a computed model of a thing can be expected to be literally an instance of
the thing. For the brain or anything else. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18pt;text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">======================================<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">When I see these memes operating,
and I am operating without them, I am rendered unable to say anything! Saying
anything at all is tacitly acquiescing to the proposition that they have
anything to say about the area I am in when they don’t.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Bummer, huh? I don’t mean this to
be dismissive! This is a real, huge problem that has a whole science looking
away from a solution to a big problem. I for one am angry that this has gone on
for so long. It is a unique position in science and it only came about when
computers came along and there was a new kind of mistake to be made and we made
it and then industrialised it.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Returning to your text …. I have
a heap of things to say about the details. But let’s step back and look at the
big picture of the science. The ‘experiments’ you detailed presuppose the memes.
In particular MEME 3. Let me show you how a map/territory confusion has trashed
the normal science process. Consider the claim:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">“ MEME3 = A computed model of a natural
thing is unconditionally identical in every respect to the natural thing”.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">That is, in effect, MEME3’s
tacit claim about the world. In particular the science of AI. In the case of AI
and the brain MEME3 is what everyone has invested in for 75 years. Now it’s
spectacularly industrialised with vast computing power while egregiously failing
to deliver the equivalent of even the simplest human capacities for autonomous
learning by a 2 year old.<br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Let’s set that issue aside and scientifically
deal with MEME3’s status as a law of nature. To see if something is a ‘law of
nature’ you have 2 empirical options.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify">(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>Test for the logical consequences of its truth.<span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify">(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>Test for the logical consequences of its falsehood.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b>(I)</b> In (1) we assume MEME3 is true, we build AIcomp as computed
models of natural intelligence. We compare and contrast nature and AIcomp.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b>(II) </b>In (2) we assume MEME3 is false, we build, instead, artificial
versions of the natural original, AIrep, which is not a computer but a bunch of
very specific physics impressed on space. We inorganically replicate the
physics in space (on new chips). It has an EEG and MEG signature like us. It
drives sensory/actuation like ours. We compare and constrast nature and AIrep.
(Note: neuromorphic chips DO NOT DO THIS! Sorry, heading off an obvious
misdirection)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">===========<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">OK.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Now at this point I don’t have to
claim anything about the truth of MEME3. What I can claim is that <b>the science is broken. </b>Evidence? Up until the invention of the
computer:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify">a)<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>No scientist in their right mind would ever
claim MEME3 true. Computation was done by hand. Automation of computation is
only that!<span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify">b)<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman"">
</span>All scientists had ever done up to this point,
to find laws of nature, was test <b>(II)</b>!<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">After the invention of the
computer, and ONLY in AI, <u>the only testing ever done has been (I)</u>. For
75 years non-stop. MEME3 presupposed true. By everyone.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">So you see I can’t even begin to
have a discussion in the terms you require because MEME3 has to stop being
presupposed true in order that I can contribute anything at all. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">All I insist on is that the
science be normalised. MEME3 could even be true. My argument still stands. I don’t
think MEME3 is true but that is moot. All I have to say is I don’t know if
MEME3 is true <b>and either does anyone
else and the testing framework is broken.</b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I hope you can see my position in
this. As you may be aware I am squirrelled away doing AI without computers (and
having a helluva time I might add! Amazing). Because of this situation of me
not presupposing MEME3 is true, but by simply adopting what was normal science
for 3 centuries before electronic computers bamboozled everyone (people that
had never actually done any real science, mainly), I find myself unable to usefully
engage your writings. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">There is a bunch of stuff in your
writings that I concur with without explanation. Such as ‘<i>beat to death, with a baseball bat any AI done to date (roboticised or
not) and that AI won’t notice because all of it has the subjective life of a
coma (nothing) and is not actually AI at all. It is merely automation mistaken
for AI and actually has zero intelligence. This is because there’s literally
none of the intelligence-essential physics of the brain retained in the AI</i>’. Exiting AI is as dumb as dogshit not because of what it does, but because of its zero intellect in handling novelty.<br><br>If you test for MEME3 being false and do TEST (II) you can’t assume this to be
the case. Which is what I am facing or due to face in the not so distant
future.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Thanks for the interest ….<br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:wingdings">J</span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Cheers<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Colin<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p></div></div>