4 ms·

As most readers have surmised, this is indeed a fallacious grasp for some reason to think the human beings are metaphysically special. See also yters' post htt

As most readers have surmised, this is indeed a fallacious grasp for some reason to think the human beings are metaphysically special. See also yters' post https://mindmatters.today/2018/09/meaningful-information-vs-artificial-intelligence/ https://mindmatters.today/2018/09/meaningful-information-vs-... The argument presented relies on the idea that humans can create 'mutual information' about the world which has been shown to be impossible. However, the relies on assuming that we actually create mutual information. Instead, consider the fact that Bayesian processes with enough observations can approximate mutual information arbitrarily well. Now it seems that Yters' entire argument falls apart because the most reasonable explaination for how the human brain operates come down to Bayesian processes. Does it sound more reasonable to you that the human brain is a magical 'partial halting oracle' violating the very laws of physics, or that the human brain uses Bayesian reasoning to build up predictions about the world which are only well founded statistically?

yters 8y ago
This accompanying proof I put together shows halting oracles can create mutual information: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ So if humans are partial halting oracles, then they can create mutual information. The HN discussion page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525
- eigenspace 8y ago
  Yes but the whole point is that nobody believes that humans are partial halting oracles, and there is a simpler, more believable explanation that doesn’t require that claim. I have a hard time seeing your argument as anything other than 'motivated reasoning' attempting to justify to your religious/metaphysical beliefs.
  - yters 8y ago
    I'd be interested in this alternate claim. You mentioned something about Bayesian updates. Ironically, I see this the other way around. I think people are having a hard time accepting the possibility that humans are partial halting oracles because of their bias against anything that seems religious, even if it makes more sense.
    - eigenspace 8y ago
      To be clear, I could be convinced that humans are partial halting oracles but it would take extraordinary evidence as it is an extraordinary claim and so many people react so strongly to these claims because they dont feel it comes with the appropriate extraordinary evidence. If you're interested in Bayesian approximations of mutual information check out the references listed at [1] and tell me what you think, as this is far from my speciality. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information#Bayesian_estimation_of_mutual_information https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information#Bayesian_...
      - yters 8y ago
        Thanks for the link, I will be checking it out. I evaluate this issue with a Bayesian + max entropy approach. We have two hypotheses: 1. humans are TMs 2. humans are PHOs Max entropy weights these hypotheses equally. What humans do is given the highest expectation with #2. Thus, Bayesian hypothesis selection says #2 is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Inference to the best explanation says humans are PHOs.
        eigenspace 8y ago
        > I evaluate this issue with a Bayesian + max entropy approach. I have a similar approach to gravity. There are two hypotheses 1. The gravitational field comes about from the curvature of spacetime 2. The ghost of Einstein flies around through all of space at an impossibly high speed nudging all objects such that their trajectories align with what he would find elegant. Max entropy weights these hypotheses equally. What h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ planets do is given the highest expectation with #2. Thus, Bayesian hypothesis selection says #2 is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Inference to the best explanation says h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶P̶H̶O̶s̶ gravity is Einstein's ghost.

yters 8y ago

This accompanying proof I put together shows halting oracles can create mutual information: https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ https://www.am-nat.org/site/law-of-information-non-growth/ So if humans are partial halting oracles, then they can create mutual information. The HN discussion page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18377525

eigenspace 8y ago
Yes but the whole point is that nobody believes that humans are partial halting oracles, and there is a simpler, more believable explanation that doesn’t require that claim. I have a hard time seeing your argument as anything other than 'motivated reasoning' attempting to justify to your religious/metaphysical beliefs.
- yters 8y ago
  I'd be interested in this alternate claim. You mentioned something about Bayesian updates. Ironically, I see this the other way around. I think people are having a hard time accepting the possibility that humans are partial halting oracles because of their bias against anything that seems religious, even if it makes more sense.
  - eigenspace 8y ago
    To be clear, I could be convinced that humans are partial halting oracles but it would take extraordinary evidence as it is an extraordinary claim and so many people react so strongly to these claims because they dont feel it comes with the appropriate extraordinary evidence. If you're interested in Bayesian approximations of mutual information check out the references listed at [1] and tell me what you think, as this is far from my speciality. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information#Bayesian_estimation_of_mutual_information https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information#Bayesian_...
    - yters 8y ago
      Thanks for the link, I will be checking it out. I evaluate this issue with a Bayesian + max entropy approach. We have two hypotheses: 1. humans are TMs 2. humans are PHOs Max entropy weights these hypotheses equally. What humans do is given the highest expectation with #2. Thus, Bayesian hypothesis selection says #2 is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Inference to the best explanation says humans are PHOs.
      - eigenspace 8y ago
        > I evaluate this issue with a Bayesian + max entropy approach. I have a similar approach to gravity. There are two hypotheses 1. The gravitational field comes about from the curvature of spacetime 2. The ghost of Einstein flies around through all of space at an impossibly high speed nudging all objects such that their trajectories align with what he would find elegant. Max entropy weights these hypotheses equally. What h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ planets do is given the highest expectation with #2. Thus, Bayesian hypothesis selection says #2 is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Inference to the best explanation says h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶P̶H̶O̶s̶ gravity is Einstein's ghost.