ozy

10 ms·

31.
The Aware Will Argument for Free Will(onnlucky.com)
1 points by ozy 8y ago|0 comments
32.
by ozy 8y ago
I think compute power is what matters, not amount of simulations. Compute power available in simulated realities vs base reality will always be significantly in favor or root reality. And parsimonious simulation won't work, or would be
33.
by ozy 8y ago
Maybe it is a self-filtering effect, they should have shown a graph of shoe price vs improvement, and improvement over time. That would capture if those willing to pay more are self-selecting for being better, training more, etc. And if tod
34.
by ozy 8y ago
I believe we can make thinking machines. And "deep pattern matching" will be part of it. But it will need to fit in another architecture, most likely a lot like (deep) reinforcement learning. Probably with strong focus on modeling
35.
by ozy 8y ago
We call it deep learning, but it is deep pattern matching. Extremely useful, but don't expect it to result in thinking machines.
36.
by ozy 8y ago
Notice how blacks swans is a labeling/categorization problem. Whereas F=ma is a causal relationship. The first has no induction problem, there is no swan-ness except in our minds. The second has no induction problem, because you model
37.
by ozy 8y ago
consciousness: https://psyarxiv.com/387h9
38.
by ozy 8y ago
In the past, philosophy had a lot of ground to cover. Today science covers all the ground on what is, what exists, what can be modeled. Philosophy only the ground of what matters. For example, free will is entirely a science question. How t
39.
by ozy 8y ago
Some animals clearly show understanding up to a level https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04 But they can not explain it to us, so "can explain" is a unnecessary high bar.
40.
Technically, what is Understanding?(onnlucky.com)
2 points by ozy 8y ago|3 comments
41.
by ozy 9y ago
But you've now shifted the "how" question. (Or I misunderstood the original.) It is not a question of how there is emergence, why there is magic. The answer to that is is because systematic interactions at a low level can cre
42.
by ozy 9y ago
Same way waves emerge in water. The rules that govern a system can create patterns, which themselves behave according to rules, but with a set of rules that was "hard to predict" from the underlying system.
43.
by ozy 9y ago
https://psyarxiv.com/387h9
44.
by ozy 9y ago
Since life or evolution is basically self-replication with variation in a shared environment, any mechanism that can carry information forwards can and probably will be used, or has been in the past. From that perspective, some phenotype ch
45.
by ozy 9y ago
Sortof. But with a few caveats. 1) most computer viruses don't randomly vary, and thus don't have a learning effect, miss unlimited heredity. 2) they are not physical life, so the relevance is not the same as their chemical counte
46.
by ozy 9y ago
My personal definition of life: self-replication with unlimited heredity. self-replication: something can make a copy of itself. unlimited heredity: when "information" is added, it is copied along, even if it does not contribute d
47.
Entropy, Learning and Free Will(onnlucky.com)
2 points by ozy 9y ago|0 comments
48.
by ozy 9y ago
This is also very interesting and related: https://psyarxiv.com/387h9
49.
by ozy 9y ago
> Via IQ tests? Just the fact that you recognize an IQ test as such, allows me to mark you as intelligent. Very objective. The actual score, sure that is much more subjective. > when I use a neural network instead of a table That real
50.
by ozy 9y ago
Consciousness is the observation of your self. There is only one system that can make that observation, you. Outside we could observe how information is flowing, what connects to what, how parts work, how they work together. But never obser
51.
by ozy 9y ago
Reinforcement based learning requires self-observation. Especially when done with predictive modeling. Both the brain clearly does. You might like this paper: https://psyarxiv.com/387h9
52.
by ozy 9y ago
A system that can observe things, and also observe its own observations, its own mental states, it is not so clear that such a system can be a p-zombie.
53.
by ozy 9y ago
https://psyarxiv.com/387h9 Conclusion "We don’t have an objective measure of consciousness. But we can recognize three levels of learning that apply that to our brains and how those create an information processing sys
54.
Consciousness explained from a learning perspective [pdf](psyarxiv.com)
2 points by ozy 9y ago|0 comments
55.
by ozy 9y ago
I might have missed it, but key is that DNA is not executed linearly. Instead all instructions are executed all the time. Much like the difference in normal programming and programming an FPGA, but then probabilistic.
56.
by ozy 9y ago
Meaning and subjectivity come from (machine) learning, or relativity as Riccardo calls it. I think, consciousness from how our brains learn, namely by having internalized the feedback. Which is another way of saying by modeling the world, a
57.
by ozy 9y ago
Again, since I didn't talk about those issues, you cannot conclude what I do or do not know.
58.
by ozy 9y ago
Why am I "pretty clueless" when your comment does not even address anything I said, let alone counter it? You add a whole different perspective, but one that is fully compatible on top of what I said, nobody is denying that part o
59.
by ozy 9y ago
You are saying one thing, but describing another. We want people to always have good opportunities to bootstrap themselves out of a terrible situation (your gutter and wallmart situations). But we don't want to remove all the rewards f
60.
by ozy 9y ago
No. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job? Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what

More ›