Search Ideas
I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought
And again, not convinced any external world or feedback is required for open-endedness (per Deutsch). It might merely be very helpful.
Yes, and perhaps this helpfulness is underestimated? One guess is therefore that the plateaus that have occurred is due to the difficulty of escaping the hardware case of the computer. Our vehicles (bodies) allow for much easier physical instantiation of replicators, compared to replicators inside computers.
There must be a minimum amount of available memory needed for a program to be a person. What can the program not do, below that minimum? What is that minimum M bits being used for that cannot be done with M-1 bits?
I usually get conspiracy vibes from anti-fluoride sources, but I haven’t looked into it much.
Gemini's response to that tweet: "The text uses legitimate biochemical concepts—like the fact that fluoride is a potent halogen that hardens minerals and can be toxic in high doses—to build a narrative based on skewed history. It fabricates a geological explanation for Hereford, Texas, to erase the very thing that actually protected the town's teeth: naturally occurring fluoride."
Possibly related: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/what-is-the-difference-between-a-person-and-a-re
Is a quale a sequence of information states? Is this true of any given computation? Does the quale "care" if the states are computed afresh or read from memory?
Assuming qualia are classical, there is nothing stopping every step in the computation comprising them from being measured, like any computation. Then, nothing is stopping that recording/program from being rerun.
Any physical process can be simulated to arbitrary precision. A simulation is a program, and nothing is stopping any given program from being rerun.
But the mind has finite memory as well, and doesn't stop showing novelty. I was going to say it doesn't plateau in complexity, but actually I guess there is a ceiling... It's just that new and better ideas make better use of the finite resources; they aren't just more complex.
Not sure what you mean by the soup being more open to the world, or allowing for "more" open-ended evolution. Unless you mean the quantity. I think evolution is either open- or closed-ended, as a binary. And again, not convinced any external world or feedback is required for open-endedness (per Deutsch). It might merely be very helpful.
Indeed. And this is one of the reasons the cynics are wrong. They think true ideas couldn’t be improved further. This worries them because they want unbounded progress. So they conclude our ideas can never be 100% true. Not only is that motivated reasoning but, as you’ve just said, true ideas can still be improved anyway.
I also picture a primordial soup often. Maybe including these autonomous regions or layers I'm grasping at. Soups and "Turing gases" have been programmed and so far always plateau in complexity, even with no predefined criterion, so there's something else going on.
Couldn't it be that there still are limitations of the simulated environment that act as selection criteria? Such as the available memory. The "soup" definitely seems more open to the entire world, which presumably would allow for more open ended evolution (even though that still took a couple of billion years after universality was achieved).
Great, that makes sense. True statements should ofc be criticisable depending on the problem situation.
This sounds true but does it add anything new to saying that "AGI is an attempt to program Darwins theory of evolution"? 🤔
Like, the criticism flag isn’t just for factual errors, if that’s what you mean.
If you think his comment won’t work as a solution for AGI, then his comment is erroneous from that POV.
Hmm, I'll try to formulate in another way what I was getting at, not sure if you still disagree with this:
- My guess is that the selection mechanism can't be specified at all in the evolutionary algorithm, because every such specification is a restriction of universality. Reality has to do the selection.
Do you think my comment shouldn't count as a criticism? The content of Martin's comment doesn't contain any errors, but it can be criticised as an attempt to solve problems towards AGI
May have found a solution to my salt problem: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ5cCwQFOtp/
The Kirin Electric Salt Spoon. CNET wrote an article about it: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-tested-an-electric-salt-spoon-that-might-help-you-stick-to-your-low-sodium-diet/
It basically works by using electric signals to trick your brain into thinking it’s tasting salt.
If this is intended to answer my criticism, shouldn’t it be marked as a counter-criticism?
You’ve submitted several criticisms in one idea. It’s in your interest to avoid doing that because you make yourself vulnerable to what we call ‘bulk criticism’. See #4471.
I may have more criticisms but I can’t really submit them productively until you split up your idea.
Please work on your tone. You’re mixing in personal accusations rather than just sticking with impersonal arguments. For example: “apparently insisting”, “pedantic”, and also a hidden accusation that I have an ulterior motive to punish women rather than save lives (“Regardless of whether your real concern here…”).
This kind of tone can derail and sabotage debate. Veritula has a policy against any behavior that sabotages debate. Please review our forum rules (#4460).
New accounts, especially anonymous ones, need to tread lightly and prove they’re worth engaging with.
This is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
It wasn’t intended as a criticism. It was a related observation. That’s why I didn’t mark my idea as a criticism. It sounds like you’ve misunderstood me.
Please remember to mark your ideas as criticisms whenever appropriate. Although this idea is phrased as a question, it’s still a pending criticism as long as it doesn’t get answered.