From: Marc Geddes (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 16 2005 - 00:59:28 MDT
Hmm. It seems that shall have to post again to
respond these replies. Moth to the flame... *sigh*
--- Richard Loosemore <email@example.com> wrote:
> [See end of message for biographical introduction].
> Marc Geddes wrote:
> > I shall conclude my time at SL4 with a brief
> > of my theory,
> On the day of your departure [sic], may I step in
> with my first post and
> give what I believe to be a cogent response to your
> many arguments.
> 1) You would like morality (and cognition and
> volition, etc.) to be as
> tight a system of ideas as physics - where the
> concepts and laws and
> equations fit together with such elegant mutual
> consistency that we can
> say with some confidence that *this* (physics) is
> *the* correct account
> of how the universe is (modulo some fine details
> that we are still
> working on). You would like there to be an
> extension of physics to
> cover morality, cognition, volition, etc., and you
> would like the
> extension to inherit the universality that we
> believe we can see in physics.
This is not really correct. You have misinterpreted
me. I'm not proposing much of an extension to
*physics* as such, rather an extension to *science*.
I am a property dualist, in that I think that at the
most fundamental level of reality, there's more than
one valid way to describe that reality.
Materialism is *one* valid way to describe reality
(that is, I agree that everything can be *described*
in physical terms).
But I'm proposing that materialism is not the *only*
valid way to describe reality. I think one could for
instance, equally give a full description of all of
reality in terms of qualia (mental events).
So materialism gives a complete *description* of
reality, but not a complete *explanation* of reality.
Materialism has *descriptive* completeness, but not
*explanatory* completeness. I think things like
volition, qualia etc are fundamental properties of the
universe. So I think new kinds of science are needed
to *explain* these things in their own terms.
Do you follow? If not look up 'property dualism' in a
> 2) You go beyond just wanting this, of course: you
> say you know it is
> true and claim to be able to "prove" it.
Ah, well again, I think you've misinterpreted. I
certainly don't claim to have proved it! (If I was
THAT good I wouldn't be wasting time here, I'd be out
coding the AGI and submitting papers to all the
I think my *general principles* seem to me to have an
irreducible force of intuitive 'rightness' to them ;)
Of course, general principles is one thing, working
out the math is quite another...
I haven't got the math. That would probably take me
15-35 years I estimate.
> I am a cognitive scientist (and, coincidentally, a
> former student of
> John Taylor). This theory is *not* widely accepted.
> Au contraire, your
> discussion of "consciousness" (like Taylor's) is
> riddled with the kind
> of confusion that sends philosophers and cognitive
> scientists tearing up
> the wall with frustration.
What 'wild assertions'? What 'confusion'? I'd say
the ideas are crystal clear, albeit highly
'property dualism' is a crystal clear philosophical
position. As an assertion it says that qualia are a
fundamental property of the universe (See what I said
It's most of the current scientific community that are
confused about qualia, not me ;)
Let me put it this way: Suppose you tried to claim
that consciousness can be completely explained in
material terms. Then I would ask: If everyone was a
zombie would they be able to understand your
explanation? ;) This to me is the clearest argument
you can get that materialism might have *descriptive*
completeness, but it doesn't have *explanatory*
completeness, and any explanation of qualia actually
*presupposes* the existence of qualia to begin with.
Let me sum up my theory again, in crystal clear terms:
*Reality itself is operating off 7 different
mathematical systems of axioms.
*Each of these 7 axiom sets are *almost* but not quite
consistent. So I'm saying there are small
inconsistencies in reality iteself.
*The maths from each of the different axiom sets can
serve as a 'metalanguage' to understand the maths of
the other axiom sets. So 'reality' forms a complete
'closed loop'. But you need at least 7 different
axiom sets to get a 'complete' system. This is the
only way to beat the 'Godel limitation'.
*Each mathematical axiom set appears to us as 'a
fundamental proeprty' of reality. One type of math
appears as 'Cognition', another type of math appears
as 'Computation', another type appears as 'Volition',
another type as 'Force' (or interaction), another type
as 'Qualia', another type as 'Propositions' and the
final type as 'Space/Matter' (geometey). So there are
7 different ways to interpret reality depending on
which axiom set we choose to describe reality as.
*Any working general intelligence would have to mimic
the structure of reality itself. So you would need 7
different axiom sets to beat the Godel problem. And
to get seed FAI you simply have to put enough
information in, so phrased in the language of one type
of math, the system can completely understand the
other types of math (i.e cognitive closure).
I'd say these ideas are crystal clear. To me at least
they seem blindingly, overwhelmingly obvious. No, I
don't claim to have proved them yet, but I'm certainly
puzzled as to why for instance, someone like Eliezer
can't see how clear-cut and right they actually are ;)
--- As to Ben's point, please re-read my previous posts Ben! There's more than one kind of 'pattern'. I just told you I think there are in fact 7 different fundamental mathematical definitions. I think 'volition' is a fundamental property of the universe, so there'll be a specific mathematical definition of pattern concerned with that. And then I pointed out that the AI reasons: "property X is good for cognition if property X is needed for cognition" Since Volition is a fundamental property of the universe needed for 'cognitive closure', the AI must automatically conclude volition is good, and altruism automatically follows. --- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT