tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post9188010106384042438..comments2024-03-15T23:30:38.471+11:00Comments on Lindsay's Lobes: A New Kind of thinking Lindsay Byrneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030132436987752741noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-15305899359253375842017-11-13T12:06:24.193+11:002017-11-13T12:06:24.193+11:00Did you consider trading with the ultimate Bitcoin...Did you consider trading with the ultimate Bitcoin exchange service - <b><a href="http://btcx.syntaxlinks.com/r/YoBit" rel="nofollow">YoBit</a></b>.Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-15603621105877419172017-04-12T18:14:42.935+10:002017-04-12T18:14:42.935+10:00Hi Mercutio,
I must have missed your response but...Hi Mercutio, <br />I must have missed your response but pleased to hear the post tied in to some of your coursework in organizational theory. <br />Reference: There is of course a weakness in the rules that I see is that they presume no perturbment, else an imperturbability.<br />However, the perturbments themselves may well distinguish another sort of rule, i.e. allow some sort of predictability.<br /><br />Response: A good point but I think one needs to bear in mind his experiments produced apparent randomness. Hence applying every statistical test for randomness the results remain completely unpredictable. The introduction of turbulence is another factor that in turn might trigger a different outcome but that in itself does not negate his original conclusion. If could be for instance that turbulence itself is random in which event then that renders another pattern according to its activity. It doesn’t follow it will be any more or less predictable. <br />The results however are far more interesting than to indicate randomness because the patterns produced in many instances can resemble nature or patterns we associate with high degrees of intelligence. Wolfram makes the point: “Whenever a phenomenon is encountered that seems complex it is taken almost for granted that the phenomenon must be the result of some underlying mechanism that is itself complex. But my discovery that simple programs can produce great complexity makes it clear that this is not in fact correct.”<br />So even in the complex behaviors of quantum mechanics it could be these mysterious workings are still governed by simple rules that produce the randomness we find so perplexing. <br />Thanks for joining and adding your interesting thoughts to the questions. <br />Best wishes <br /><br /><br />Lindsay Byrneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030132436987752741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-33068614864539381532017-04-09T01:50:48.955+10:002017-04-09T01:50:48.955+10:00Hello, Lindsay.
This post tied in to some coursew...Hello, Lindsay.<br /><br />This post tied in to some coursework in organizational theory I have going on.<br />The major weakness in the rules that I see is that they presume no perturbment, else an imperturbability.<br />However, the perturbments themselves may well distinguish another sort of rule, i.e. allow some sort of predictability.<br /><br />Following from Susan's responses:<br /><br />When will AI reach human-level intelligence?<br />- "At what level?" is really the question. If we approach the matter from another point, we see that perspective arrives from a place. Intelligence cannot exist without a place to it to reside. From this view, the corporation is a primitive AI dispersed among its many parts. I believe this view is helpful, in some ways, to see various issues inherent in AI.<br />For one, there is the issue of lifespan, and the related issue of accumulation of resources. Might another own an intelligence, though artificial? Does this intelligence, too, have a right to life, once brought into being?<br />Also, we like to think of AI as something benevolent; but what of the Enrons and al-Qaedas of the world? What if we had a particularly nasty AI on our hands? Is it ok to kill the thing, i.e. pull the plug, or do we hold that no amount of property is worth a life, even an artificial one?<br />Is an AI subject to suit, and, if so, must it have a registered agent?<br /><br />I'm getting vibes from Planet of the Apes here (the original, with Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell, of course).<br /><br />Do we live in a deterministic universe?<br />- Of course we do, to some extent. Nonetheless, will is a characteristic of mind, even a complacent one.<br />Perhaps it is the case that we are slowly discovering the extent to which our universe is deterministic in nature; in which case, we will find other objects whereon to focus our will. That is, our will, as individuals, will evolve to find something on which to exert itself, avoiding that which is deterministic. As that portion which is deterministic continues to expand in our understanding, our will will find a greater portion not subject to its compulsion, but will find an outlet nonetheless.<br />That is, it could well be the case that, the greater the determinism understood, the more perfectly our will might be focused. But I don't believe a perfect determinism is capable fo being understood by the human mind.<br /><br />Is our present reality a simulation?<br />- It may be the case that X is a very urgent issue from the perspective of a polynomial.<br />I believe the Native American mysticism gives the proper answer to this; somewhat condensed as: How could a simulation be not real, presently?<br /><br />Warm regards,Mercutiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13270898097330918764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-59160318745729835062017-03-27T12:42:14.503+11:002017-03-27T12:42:14.503+11:00Thanks Susan – Very well said!!
In fact Wolfram i...Thanks Susan – Very well said!! <br />In fact Wolfram in his observations about the 'wild things' happening contends the application of AL cannot solve this reality fully. I think his theoretical concepts may well be further enhanced and looked upon maybe in in the decades ahead differently. But I think he is also shows a certain humility who more or less agrees with what you and I are saying. <br />Best wishes <br />Lindsay Byrneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030132436987752741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-40365345655833347502017-03-27T05:21:48.598+11:002017-03-27T05:21:48.598+11:00Hi Lindsay,
While I admire you having done so I ha...Hi Lindsay,<br />While I admire you having done so I have to admit I don't have the wherewithal to read this entire post and to absorb all the complex ramifications of Stephen Wolfram's massive work. The questions you posed at the end are also worthy of much more time, effort, and intellectual capacity than I can manage, but I've attempted a few:<br /><br />When will AI reach human-level intelligence?<br />- The moral implications of building a conscious AI are the same as those of having a baby. We are not nearly prepared, as a society or as individuals, to address the full implications of this point. And I do not trust any of the present powers-that-be, whether governments or Google, to define the answers for us. It may eventually come to pass, but I hope that time won't arrive until we have improved enough as a species to know what's best for all.<br /><br />Do we live in a deterministic universe?<br />- I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I also don't think it matters. To all practical intents and purposes, it isn't deterministic because it's too complex for us to make definite predictions, even at a theoretical level. <br /><br />Is our present reality a simulation?<br />- Considering the word 'simulation' means an imitation of something else I'd have to answer that only God can make an apple that can satisfy our hunger - or a worm's. In other words, I agree with you.<br /><br />All the best<br /><br />susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747450215034568033noreply@blogger.com