Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - P3nT4gR4m

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 612
16
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 02:36:47 pm »
What you said about philosophy rings true with me. Philosophy seems to have a grammar and language suited to examining consciousness which science totally lacks. Science likes objectivity. Consciousness is an entirely subjective phenomenon. I think the article in the OP is what happens when objective science tries to understand the wellspring of subjectivity. Sure, we might figure it out eventually but until then I expect there will be many more lulzfests like this.

17
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:38:31 pm »

I'm actually having trouble finishing the article, I'm just cringing too much. They referenced the hard problem of consciousness right at the beginning of the article without one mention of the guy who popularized the term, David Chalmers. Leaps of logic and half-baked metaphors abound. I don't think I can read it all


Maybe the hard problem is only hard because we're trying to solve it using consciousness. Like trying to measure a ruler using the ruler itself. Maybe there are finite limits to what a couple of pounds of meat is capable of understanding. Maybe consciousness is what happens when you have something really simple happening over and over, in parallel, at massive scale. We can just about grok what an individual neuron does with a signal or even a small group of them but, by the time your get to a couple of thousand, we're clueless. Millions? Billions? Forget it.

I'm not sure that's ever likely to change. Maybe scientific study of consciousness is impossible. Science can't even prove such a thing exists, never mind how it works. We'd almost certainly need a brand new language to describe it. Just grabbing a trendy branch of mathematics off the shelf doesn't look like it's going to get far.

18
Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 10:17:04 am »
Quote
The idea that what were doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results its very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects.

A lot of what he's saying makes sense and, to be honest, there's really nothing new there but I'm getting a strong sense of barstool in places where he does what most of these guys do and extrapolates too far. They take cause out of cause and effect and expect shit to still work.

If every third word in a - there's no such thing as reality - article is "quantums" I grow dubious.

19
My (mis)understanding is that these things work by observing the existing relationships within a corpus. When asked to make a decision, it's just selecting the "most probable response" based on the existing relationships.

To me, that implies a ceiling of what's capable using this method. Neural networks trying to model human intelligence can become, at best, as smart as a human. If there is some advanced form of reasoning that we don't use, it won't appear in a neural network (at least, not one that's studying humans).

I think where you're going a bit off is with this idea of trying to model human intelligence. The machine isn't even aware of how humans do something and any similarity in approach is coincidental. If you decouple "Human" and "intelligence" and concentrate on defining raw intelligence or raw cognition it's much more nuts and bolts than how human brains do it.

As for advanced reasoning, it depends how you define advanced. The ability to form a correlation based on billions of pages of data would suggest to me advanced in terms of processing throughput. No human could see a pattern in that much data. They wouldn't even be able to read it. Machines are pretty simplistic in comparison. A black and decker drill with a couple of hundred component parts is a lot less complex than a human with  trillions of cells but if I wanted a row of perfect 1/8th holes drilled in something I know which one I'd reach for first.

On the other side of the scale you have things humans do in a much more advanced way than machines. Love and poetry and convincing other humans they're conscious and intelligent.

In the middle of the scale - the battleground between meat and silicon is where we will find out that a lot of intelligent things humans used to be unsurpassed at are going to be done tens, hundreds or even thousands of times better by humanoid robots with titanium endoskeletons and an insatiable lust for world domination.

If you can be arsed wading through academic jargon the paper on arxiv goes into excruciating detail on how machine translation works these days.

20
Bring and Brag / Re: Squiggles
« on: November 29, 2016, 10:20:29 pm »
I have attempts done for Alty, Nigel, TWJ, Pent (not happy with this one yet), and Junky. Roger, do you want one now that I've clarified what a squiggle is? I won't finalize or post anything without confirmation.

No one's ever happy with anything to do with me. It's the nearest thing I have to a trademark  :ECH:


21
A Faraday Cage was the only structure capable of containing Michael Faraday when he was fighting drunk.

22
Nanotubes or GTFO!  8)

23
Beyond the wall / Re: ERIS'SSSSSSS THREAD
« on: November 29, 2016, 07:29:20 pm »
dEAR eRIS. i HAVE BEEN GOOD. i WANT AN xBOXAND THE NEW cALL OF dUTY GAME AND A BIGSCREEN TV AND A PUPPY AND SOME KIND OF TECTONIC EVENT THAT SENDS A TSUNAMI AT THE uk ON OR AROUND MY BIRTHDAY WOULD BE SUPER KTHNXBAI

24
Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: November 29, 2016, 07:11:00 pm »
Angry little goblin bastard loosely based on the middle one trying more to capture the expression than the whole awesome.






25
Bring and Brag / Re: Squiggles
« on: November 29, 2016, 07:06:54 pm »
Haha, I dig it!

Junkie - When punk grew up and had to get a job it got a job smashing shit up

Nigel - People told Nigel if she had a brain she'd be dangerous. Nigel set her life's goal to developing the worlds most dangerous brain.

Roger - Knows which pieces of duct tape are holding the important parts of the universe together. Also knows just how they should be pulled to achieve maximum effect

WJ - When distressed can inflate his body to three times it's normal size and emit a piercing shriek capable of breaking windows up to half a mile away

26
Speaking of DNN's Nvidia, The cornerstone of pretty much everything that's happened the last couple of years, the same way intel was the foundation of the information revolution, are poised to give us 40+ years worth of Moores law progress in the space of a couple of months by refining architecture instead of metal.

The downside is more presentations featuring the eminently uncharismatic Jen-Hsun Huang  :cry:

27
Bring and Brag / Re: Squiggles
« on: November 28, 2016, 10:20:50 pm »
Wos a squiggle?

Gimme!

Junkie and Nigel are pigfuckers.

Was that okay?

28
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Misinfo Wars
« on: November 28, 2016, 10:15:34 pm »
:nope:

29
Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: November 28, 2016, 07:13:34 pm »
Sweaty little goblin bastard

30
One man's intuition is another mans complete inability to explain his own thought process.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 612