Unlimited Higher Education Thread

[Don Coyote]

We are done with Consolations of Philosphy in my Medieval Quests class. Now for Beowulf, and I had to rein myself in to keep from hogging the very little bit of class we talked about Beowulf and kennings. I really really really like kennings.

[Cuddlefish]

X-post from my epistemology class forum, just for sharts and gargles.

There is a great deal to speak about in regards to the topic of artificial intelligence (which I, as I consider it to be a derisive term, will hereby refer to as 'artifactual intelligence,' or, to get even further away from the acronym and thereby the associated preconceived notions and stigmas, 'manufactured intelligence,' or MI, to be pronounced 'me') and no doubt to the chagrin of Putnam and Searle, the topic is far from closed.

Not only do recent advances in computing and technology open up new avenues for this discussion to take place, many of the original refutations stand on grounds no less shaky than the arguments they intend to refute. First, in an all too brief response to Putnam (while not included in the reading, it must be mentioned) his ideas of a computer's (or in his case, a brain in a vat's) inability to directly reference something in a given physical reality rests on his ability to prove that we, as human beings, are capable of direct reference of a given physical reality. This is a very difficult task that has been attempted time and time again, always with a result which leaves those with objectivist desires wanting. Without a clearly defined description of a necessary connection between a tree, the responses in my brain caused by it (be they chemical, electric, quantum or otherwise), and the subsequent usage of a word that is meant to represent the sensation in our mind that we believe is caused by the tree, we have no real advantageous grounds to say that humans can ever directly reference the tree. There is no identifiable constant that is in all three, the tree, the thoughts I have of the tree, and the words I use to 'reference' it. Therefore, if we cannot directly reference something, then to hold that requirement of any MI is the type of double standard that we have held against other conscious modes, including animals as well as other people.

The above argument also applies almost equally to Searle's concept of 'understanding.' To claim a computer has no understanding of a story, he must at first tell us what it means to understand (and he seems to have a very anthropocentric idea of the meaning of the word). If I can ask a computer to add 2 and 2, and that computer gives me the answer 4, then how can we say that it is not understood by the computer? If, in order to work with numbers, one must have a working understanding of them and the mathematical functions necessary to manipulate them, such as it is clear that the computer understands the concepts of 2, 4, and addition through the very fact that it produces the correct answer. Perhaps this is a very rudimentary understanding, but understanding, nonetheless. Further, there are many actions taken by definitively conscious beings that take place without a clear or immediate understanding. We don't 'understand' many things that we successfully work with on a day to day basis, yet we do not consider this lack of understanding a lack of consciousness, and we wouldn't say that we were non-conscious before a fuller understanding of a thing, and somehow conscious afterwards. But, as Searle missed, understanding is not consciousness.

Additionally, the arguments made by Searle against 'strong AI' take into account certain assumptions that make many aspects of his argument invalid. He attacks a position that is actually not AI (or MI) at all, rather a simulation of human consciousness. These are two different things. Of course, it is a no-brainer (lol) that human consciousness cannot be displayed by a computer (or other such device). It lacks the necessary data-collection interfaces required for human consciousness (in our case, a biological framework for sense reception, such as sight, touch, etc). So, his argument seems more like this: a computer cannot be conscious in the same way as a human, to which I say, 'no shit, Sherlock.' But, all of this says nothing about whether or not that computer may possess some other form of consciousness.

And, quickly, to return to the Batman (Nagel), I feel that it was quite persuasive argument made that we cannot know what it is like to experience consciousness in another conscious entity. So, if we cannot know what it means for another conscious thing to be conscious, we also do not know what it means to be conscious in any universal sense. It therefore seems a touch premature to proclaim that any manufactured intelligence cannot be conscious.

In place of an "is-it-or-isn't-it" approach to consciousness, I propose we use a scale on which are various degrees of consciousness. The question becomes not 'is it conscious?' but rather 'how conscious is it?'

[LMNO]

Have you seen the sequences on Friendly AI over at LessWrong?

[Cuddlefish]

Have you seen the sequences on Friendly AI over at LessWrong?

I have now. Thnx for the link.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For some reason, tonight I cannot make my brain go the other way to figure out how to undo equations I know how to do frontword.

If I know how to get to J.s from Hz, how is it that I cannot figure out how to go the other way? Is driving me fucking nuts.

[Golden Applesauce]

For some reason, tonight I cannot make my brain go the other way to figure out how to undo equations I know how to do frontword.

If I know how to get to J.s from Hz, how is it that I cannot figure out how to go the other way? Is driving me fucking nuts.

Try turning the paper upside down.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

 

[Reginald Ret]

J.s   (Joules times seconds right? nomatter) to Hz?   Hz is just 'per second'
You said you already did this so this is more to check if we are talking about the same thing:  divide by (J.s.s)

So the reverse would be multiply by (J.s.s)
Right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

J.s   (Joules times seconds right? nomatter) to Hz?   Hz is just 'per second'
You said you already did this so this is more to check if we are talking about the same thing:  divide by (J.s.s)

So the reverse would be multiply by (J.s.s)
Right?

I don't think so, because 1/s is frequency, not energy, so it ALSO has to be converted to Joules using Planck's Constant. But my brain is all fucked up right now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm actually trying to get to wavelength but once I get to 1/s wavelength is easy. But I see what you're saying now, if I have J I can divide J by Planck's Constant and I'm left with 1/s, and from there I can just use wavelength = speed of light/frequency. Derp.

I should not try to math while sick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OK, I've got this. Now I can work on Rydberg's Constant. 

[Reginald Ret]

OK, I've got this. Now I can work on Rydberg's Constant. 

Glad to be of help with my halfdegraded memories of unit conversions.

Anyway, math+sick is great if you want to invent new maths. I completely figured out 3-dimensional ramifications of exponential growth in a fever dream. It was not fun, the cube kept growing and crushing me. Fever is not so good for the whole logic thingy.

[hirley0]

She He or -

Hate my chem teacher. Hate hate hate.

2:03/bbc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant {dit: Today at 02:03:55.am
2:07:07 this post is where i will describe My Ms v SI Secondday at 02:07:00am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second   {short delays entered at this point in the ?
2:11:10.01 ay at 02:11:27 am  (Olymic Torch - Space watch 2:13 2:13:26
6 Hr As of 2012, R∞ is the most accurately measured fundamental physical constant.[1]
250 K/s Hays / bbc / video / TV //// Typhoon 300K/H Philipines 400mm rain 12 hrs
According to the 2010 CODATA the constant is: v a photo v

where m_\text{e} is the rest mass of the electron, e is the elementary charge, \varepsilon_0 is the permittivity of free space, h is the Planck constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. DW.TV :

"THE CRIME OF THE ¢ENTURY" Po210 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
LONG DELAYS IN EFFECT ^ 2:34 | y at 02:34:55.1 am by hirley0



^ ThAT constant is often used in atomic physics in the form of the Rydberg unit

kEEP IN MIND  that during this period of time
there is an ongoing attack by the BED BUG BRIGADE bbb 4 short
& this is very VERY anaoying + Time consuming

V is very Very X_straw.ordinary | K

[hirley0]

.1 "the rest mass of the electron" {yep: there is only 1 {{get over it
a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass 9.10938215(45)×10−31Kg
  b: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron                   9.10938291(40)×10−31 kg
   c? http://www.universetoday.com/45079/electron-mass/ m e,  9.109 382 15
2: he elementary charge of the electron, e
a. measured value of approximately 1.602176565(35)×10−19 coulombs cgs system
  b: wrong system {get used to it
   c? http://www.universetoday.com/38394/charge-of-electron/
3? varepsilon_0 is the permittivity 0K if VA repulsion is permitted
a. i want nothing further to do with this 1
  b: tôi muốn gì hơn nữa để làm với 1 này