Activity Feed
#4793·Tyler MillsOP, 6 days agoThis suggests that all experience is determined by what programs are being subjected to evolution at any given time, the niches that are being adapted to. But why is not all creativity in the mind conscious? (All consciousness might necessarily be creativity).
Either there is no unconscious creativity, or only evolutionary/creative epochs with certain properties are conscious. The most obvious candidate for the property is complexity (in the sense of sophistication): only programs (existing knowledge) of a certain sophistication, once subjected to the evolutionary process, necessitates consciousness. Complex problem solving seems to require consciousness. Meanwhile, we do not seem to be conscious of "simpler" creative tasks, like... Like what? What is a "simple" creative task? What is an example of a creative task we perform unconsciously? How could we determine it was an act of creation (new knowledge), and not an act of deductive inference of the kind characterizing AI?
#4751·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoSOLUTION: The apple programs are not the same programs one execution to the next. They are being re-evolved every time they are run. This evolution is what the person is doing, and so must be what gives rise to the experience consisting of the apple rendering.
This suggests that all experience is determined by what programs are being subjected to evolution at any given time, the niches that are being adapted to. But why is not all creativity in the mind conscious? (All consciousness might necessarily be creativity).
#4791·Tyler MillsOP, 6 days agoIt could be simulated, but maybe it's very hard/intractable to do so. Maybe personhood harnesses physics to do the evolving, like a windmill harnesses the wind. Programs implemented such that the laws of physics cause them to evolve (unboundedly)?
But if the evolution is the defining feature of personhood, and the evolution is non-computational, then the personhood is non-computational. And consciousness would then not be a software property.
#4790·Tyler MillsOP, 6 days agoPrograms could be evolved non-computationally. But that process could itself still be simulated, per the Church-Turing-Deutsch Thesis.
It could be simulated, but maybe it's very hard/intractable to do so. Maybe personhood harnesses physics to do the evolving, like a windmill harnesses the wind. Programs implemented such that the laws of physics cause them to evolve (unboundedly)?
#4789·Tyler MillsOP, 6 days agoBy the Church-Turing Thesis, all computation can be specified/programmed. So the evolutionary aspect of a person can be specified/programmed, if it is computational.
Programs could be evolved non-computationally. But that process could itself still be simulated, per the Church-Turing-Deutsch Thesis.
#4757·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoIs all conscious experience not the running of programs, but computation that is realizing the evolution of programs? Computation which cannot be abstracted to any program, then? So in what sense can a person "be programmed"? Is personhood computational, but "non-programmatic"?
By the Church-Turing Thesis, all computation can be specified/programmed. So the evolutionary aspect of a person can be specified/programmed, if it is computational.
#4786·Tyler MillsOP, 7 days agoBut why would the system ever re-evolve to the satisfaction of a niche already satisfied previously? If the programs evolved by the evolutionary aspect of the person already exist, there is no more need for evolution of them.
The system may not have perfect knowledge of all programs present in it. The repeated independent emergence of winged flight in the biosphere comes to mind.
#4786·Tyler MillsOP, 7 days agoBut why would the system ever re-evolve to the satisfaction of a niche already satisfied previously? If the programs evolved by the evolutionary aspect of the person already exist, there is no more need for evolution of them.
Because programs present in the system at one time could be no longer present at another time. Previously well-adapted programs could have decayed, been destroyed or consumed. So the same evolutionary path (approximately or not) could be travelled again, in principle.
#4785·Tyler MillsOP, 7 days agoActually this is not implied. One experience and an identical later one could be caused by the same program(s) being run again at a later time; if the program which is identical to the given experience is part of an "evolutionary personhood program", that still qualifies: If the second experience is identical, under the above solution that just means that the exact same evolutionary steps are taken in the second case. Maybe this would virtually never happen, but poses no problem of principle.
But why would the system ever re-evolve to the satisfaction of a niche already satisfied previously? If the programs evolved by the evolutionary aspect of the person already exist, there is no more need for evolution of them.
#4756·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoThis implies that no two instances of experience, even if seemingly identical, are caused by the same programs.
Actually this is not implied. One experience and an identical later one could be caused by the same program(s) being run again at a later time; if the program which is identical to the given experience is part of an "evolutionary personhood program", that still qualifies: If the second experience is identical, under the above solution that just means that the exact same evolutionary steps are taken in the second case. Maybe this would virtually never happen, but poses no problem of principle.
Does not understand explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
Understanding explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
#4781·Dirk Meulenbelt, 7 days agoA random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
Does not understand explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
#4694·Tyler MillsOP revised 18 days agoBy this standard, a random number generator has universal creativity as well, and is therefore a person. So there must be a standard for personhood other than: able to generate any possible explanation. Such as: can do that tractably.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain why, by a person.
SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain way (by a person).
By the latter standard, neither nature nor random number generators are people, which is sensible; nor can nature create any given possible knowledge tractably -- this is true because the fact that all possible knowledge exists is only by way of the multiverse, which is a process that cannot be simulated in its entirety, even by a quantum computer, never mind tractability.
By the latter standard, neither nature nor random number generators are people, which is sensible; nor can nature create any given possible knowledge tractably -- this is true because the fact that all possible knowledge exists is only by way of the multiverse, which is a process that cannot be simulated in its entirety, even by a quantum computer.
#4774·Tyler MillsOP, 7 days agoAn alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
This wrongly implies speed is a property of programs, but it's a property of hardware.
#4774·Tyler MillsOP, 7 days agoAn alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
This is a bad criterion because then random program generators are sometimes people.
#4694·Tyler MillsOP revised 18 days agoBy this standard, a random number generator has universal creativity as well, and is therefore a person. So there must be a standard for personhood other than: able to generate any possible explanation. Such as: can do that tractably.
An alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
#3367·Benjamin Davies revised 4 months agoThis might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
or
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, usually in a deductive way.
Example: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
The other day, I heard an American say ‘must not’ in the sense you mean. So this seems to be more common than I realized.
He didn’t use the contraction, and I suspect Americans would find the contraction unnatural. But they do apparently agree that ‘must not’ does not only mean ‘is forbidden to’ but also ‘necessarily cannot’. So I was definitely wrong about this.
#4771·Dennis Hackethal revised 8 days agoSome people think if they’re hungry that means they’re losing fat. I think that’s wrong.
You can eat a single meal at Cheesecake Factory for 2500kcals and be hungry again an hour later.
Or you can eat low-calorie foods throughout the day and not get very hungry until it’s actually time to eat again.
Some people might have trouble reaching their maintenance calories if they ate nothing but chicken breast, boiled potatoes, and broccoli for a day. They’d feel very full throughout the day.
I don’t expect much correlation, if any, between how satiating and how calorically dense some food is.
The good news for people who enjoy volume eating is that you can eat a lot while losing fat as long as you do it right. That means foods high in fiber and/or water (again, potatoes) and lean proteins. Vegetables generally work well.
The most important thing for fat loss is a calorie deficit, not hunger. Hunger is not a reliable indicator that you’re losing fat. You could be losing fat without being hungry, or you could be gaining weight while being hungry often.
Don’t go off of feelings. Count calories, macronutrients, and fiber, and weigh yourself to track progress.
Some people think if they’re hungry that means they’re losing fat. I think that’s wrong.
You can eat a single meal at Cheesecake Factory for 2500kcals and be hungry again an hour later.
Or you can eat low-calorie foods throughout the day and not get very hungry until it’s actually time to eat again.
Some people might have trouble reaching their maintenance calories if they ate nothing but chicken breast, boiled potatoes, and broccoli for a day. They’d feel very full throughout the day.
I don’t expect much correlation, if any, between how satiating and how calorically dense some food is.
The good news for people who enjoy volume eating is that you can eat a lot while losing fat as long as you do it right. That means foods high in fiber and/or water (again, potatoes) and lean proteins. Vegetables generally work well.
The most important thing for fat loss is a calorie deficit, not hunger. Hunger is not a reliable indicator that you’re losing fat.
Don’t go off of feelings. Count calories, macronutrients, and fiber, and weigh yourself to track progress.
Some people think if they’re hungry that means they’re losing fat. I think that’s wrong.
You can eat a single meal at Cheesecake Factory for 2500kcals and be hungry again an hour later.
Or you can eat low-calorie foods throughout the day and not get very hungry until it’s actually time to eat again.
Some people might have trouble reaching their maintenance calories if they ate nothing but chicken breast, boiled potatoes, and broccoli for a day. They’d feel very full throughout the day.
I don’t expect much correlation, if any, between how satiating and how calorically dense some food is.
The good news for people who enjoy volume eating is that you can eat a lot while losing fat as long as you do it right. That means foods high in fiber and/or water (again, potatoes) and lean proteins. Vegetables generally work well.
The most important thing for fat loss is a calorie deficit, not hunger. Hunger is not a reliable indicator that you’re losing fat. You could be losing fat without being hungry, or you could be gaining weight while being hungry often.
Don’t go off of feelings. Count calories, macronutrients, and fiber, and weigh yourself to track progress.
Some people think if they’re hungry that means they’re losing fat. I think that’s wrong.
You can eat a single meal at Cheesecake Factory for 2500kcals and be hungry again an hour later.
Or you can eat low-calorie foods throughout the day and not get very hungry until it’s actually time to eat again.
Some people might have trouble reaching their maintenance calories if they ate nothing but chicken breast, boiled potatoes, and broccoli for a day. They’d feel very full throughout the day.
I don’t expect much correlation, if any, between how satiating and how calorically dense some food is.
The good news for people who enjoy volume eating is that you can eat a lot while losing fat as long as you do it right. That means foods high in fiber and/or water (again, potatoes) and lean proteins. Vegetables generally work well.
The most important thing for fat loss is a calorie deficit, not hunger. Hunger is not a reliable indicator that you’re losing fat.
Don’t go off of feelings. Count calories, macronutrients, and fiber, and weigh yourself to track progress.
Need time indicators again, for when an idea was posted, like we used to have. But shorter: something like ‘1h’
Need time indicators again, for when an idea was posted, like we used to have. But shorter: something like ‘1h’
Need time indicators again, for when an idea was posted, like we used to have. But shorter: something like ‘1h’