From: H C (lphege@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 15 2005 - 13:01:24 MDT
" real intelligence is about
*projections*"
That's complete crap.
You have to remember that "volitional agents" or whatever, are actually
composed of "inanimate objects/processes".
Why would "real intelligence" be about guessing (projection) instead of
experimentally confirmed truths (predictions)?
Although you did stumble upon a very useful distinction.
-- Th3Hegem0n
>From: Marc Geddes <marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz>
>Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
>To: sl4@sl4.org
>Subject: Predictions versus Projections
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:40:08 +1200 (NZST)
>
>
>--- Kaj Sotala <Xuenay@sci.fi> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And even that's only assuming your theory does hold
> > true -
> > even if you aren't capable of providing mathematical
> > proof,
> > some evidence other that "my intuition tells me
> > that" would
> > be nice. If you have anything real to show us, then
> > please
> > do - if you can't back up what you say then what you
> > say
> > has exactly the same relevance as a priest telling
> > us that any
> > sort of AI is impossible because his intuition tells
> > us an AI
> > would not have a soul - that is, none.
> >
>
>A false analogy. No one has a full theory of FAI yet.
> So we just don't know what the final theory is going
>to look like. Saying that UM *doesn't exist* is
>therefore as much of a guess as saying that it *does*
>
>And I do think I have some general idea of what the UM
>is. I just don't know the details or have the maths -
>I haven't proved it yet. That's all I meant.
>
>Intuition can certainly lead one astray in areas where
>one doesn't have a strong 'modality' (inbuilt
>conscious awareness). But in subject areas where one
>*does* have a good modality, one doesn't need
>deductive calculations. For instance for vision, you
>don't need to perform calculations of how things move.
> Humans have a good 'Spatial' modality, so we have
>direct conscious awareness of where objects are.
>
>I don't need maths or calculations to be absolutely
>confident that Eli and Wilson are wrong. I just know
>it. I'm 'hooked into' the morality modality. They
>ain't.
>
>But if you want reasons, I'll take a crack at it.
>Here goes:
>
>Here's something subtlely wrong with the notion that
>intelligence is all about 'prediction'. I prefer the
>word 'projection'. It would be more accurate to say
>that intelligence is all making correct *projections*
>rather than saying that it's all about making correct
>*predictions*. What's the difference?
>
>Well the way the word 'prediction' is normally used,
>it means predicting outcomes in the *physical
>sciences*. The physical sciences deal with inanimate
>objects - or objects that are (in the limit) totally
>isolated from interference from volitional entities
>(like humans). When predicting a solar eclipse for
>instance, scientists are assuming that no one is going
>to come along to influence the sun in such a way that
>stops the ecilpse from happening. For instance if a
>trickster alien were to use advanced technology to do
>something to the sun, the prediction of an ecilpse
>could be invalidated. So the hidden assumption in
>'predictions' in the physical sciences in that systems
>are totally isolated from *volitional agencies*
>(conscious entities that might interfere with the
>results)
>
>*Projections* are slightly different from predictions,
>because projections are *possible outcomes* that can
>include actions by volitional entities. So they can
>*mix* agency (volition) with inanimate objects.
>
>Now once you mix inanimate and animate objects in
>making projections, there's a link then established
>between utilities (goals of sentient beings) and
>predictions (movements of inanimate objects). And
>it's this link that busts Bayes and allows the
>possibility of an objective morality.
>
>Bayesian reasoning (induction) assumes as a limit that
>a system is isolated from interference from one's own
>volition. Bayes is about making *predictions*. But
>as I just explained, real intelligence is about
>*projections*, where the movements of inanimate
>objects are mixed with the actions of sentient beings.
>
>An unfriendly goal system may place bounds on
>intelligence, because unfriendly goals might be the
>one's to cause agency (volition) to mix with inanimate
>objects in such a way as to interfere with accurate
>*projections*
>
>To all you wannabe Singularitarian Jedis:
>
>You have a lot to learn my young padawans ;)
>
>
>
>---
>
>THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
> For, put them side by side,
>The one the other will include
> With ease, and you beside.
>
>-Emily Dickinson
>
>'The brain is wider than the sky'
>http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
>
>---
>
>Please visit my web-site:
>
>Mathematics, Mind and Matter
>http://www.riemannai.org/
>
>---
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT