Context effects produced by question orders reveal,quantum nature of human judgments

ue of a brain simulation a la Turing (or Beethoven) is another story.

ot they can compute like a brain does. Nor can we conclude that a sufficien tly complex machine wouldn't have emergent consciousness. (I doubt it, just a gut opinion.)

But is wouldn't be difficult to make a pseudo-random sequence generator wit h a repeat time longer than the age of the universe. It wouldn't spit out i t's sequence all that fast unless you did it in fairly fancy specialised ha rdware.

random content.

? If you were deterministic, could you tell? Could anyone?

finite state machine is mystical.

What's "mystical" about quantum uncertainty? And making a finite state mach ine whose output was hard to distinguish from a genuinely random string of bits isn't exactly difficult. It won't be non-deterministic, but how could you prove it without taking the machine apart?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bill Sloman
Loading thread data ...

But what if there was no programmer tweaking things and the state of the machine depends only on its past learning experience?

Bayesian inference will give you an answer that is in terms of a probability distribution of the possible answers, an average, median or mode depending on what you ask it for. The methods used there do not always return exactly the same answer for ill conditioned problems.

There are an incredibly large number of initial states for a brain or a simulation of one. The programmers may have designed the underlying hardware and software that supports the simulation but they can no more predict how it will behave than anyone else. The weakness with the present generation of NNs is that they cannot adequately explain their reasoning to domain experts when they appear to have made a mistake.

And sometimes the machines mistake is a new insight...

Anything that you don't understand is just attributed to magic.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

The definition of consciousness, the working definition, is that there is a certain "feel" about awareness called "qualia." It seems everyone knows what it is, in their experience, but no one can define it in any scientific terms.

And I've tried to show, in my "woo woo" posts, that some things that consciousness does is actually anti-scientific, a-scientific.

thanks John

Reply to
haiticare2011

Naughty school boys like Bill, who know little of the subject, should be quiet and try to learn something.

Reply to
haiticare2011

^^^^^^^^^^

Some clown like you? You haven't thought much about this field, or you would know that random numbers have nothing to do with this subject.

Reply to
haiticare2011

And plenty of philosophers would argue that giving a name "qualia" to something abstract that doesn't really exist is the height of stupidity.

formatting link

Self awareness is only possible in a brain network that is at least large enough to imagine what it is like to be alive. The simulations of large neural networks appear to dream in a similar way to real brains.

There is no doubt that your "woo woo" posts are unscientific and antiscientific but that is not a compliment in a sci.* group.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Haitic probably doesn't know that I haven't been a schoolboy since 1959. I didn't stop learning stuff then or even when I got my Ph.D. in 1970.

Haitic, on the other hand, thinks that Sweden had to be de-Nazified after WW2, which is wrong, and he's dumb enough that he repeated the mistake after he'd been told that it was a mistake, so it looks as if he's incapable of learning from his mistakes.

It would be nice if shut up, but incorrigible ignorance does tend to go to great lengths to remind everybody that they are persistently ignorant. Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson comes to mind, as does the even more reliably misinformed krw.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

computer program that has to interact with humans will have to include a r andom number generator to prevent some clown from gaming the system.

uld know that random numbers have nothing to do with this subject.

I'm not a hacker, and my interests don't involve gaming systems for fun or profit. I don't claim to think much about consiousness, but I do read enoug h to be aware that games theory dictates that anybody who wants to win any kind of imperfect-information game needs a random number generator to make sure that their reactions aren't entirely predictable.

It's not clear exactly what consciousness involves, but it does seem to req uire the capacity of reflective modelling - he's acting like this because h e thinks that I'm thinking like that - which is to say the entities are inv olved in playing imperfect-information games.

Chess is - of course - a perfect information game in theory, but since comp lete information is computationally inaccessible, this isn't true in practi ce.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Good for you to get a PhD. Your ideas are out of date, unfortunately. Take your favorite idea that government spending will cure the economy. That sorta worked in 1920, when Keynes the dandy floated it to his bed-fellows the politicians. Back then, many industries were capital-intensive like steel production. A little more moolah meant they could run faster. Old ideas.

But today, businesses are much more entrepreneurial and intellectual. Throwing money at railroads and bridges for "shovel ready" projects is not going to fly today.

Reply to
haiticare2011

You think you understand everything, which is the ultimate mental sterility.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Because I'm conscious. I suppose you aren't. Sure sounds like it.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Post-scientific.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

:

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com

e:

what he does know is wrong. His opinion of what anyone else knows is equall y suspect

be quiet and try to learn something.

. I didn't stop learning stuff then or even when I got my Ph.D. in 1970.

er WW2, which is wrong, and he's dumb enough that he repeated the mistake a fter he'd been told that it was a mistake, so it looks as if he's incapable of learning from his mistakes.

to great lengths to remind everybody that they are persistently ignorant. Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson comes to mind, as does the even more reliably misinformed krw.

The Ph.D. was in Physical Chemistry, and the first job I got was in electro nics. It took me a couple of years to turn into an electronic engineer, so the ideas that I had when I was a Ph.D. should be more irrelevant than out of date. To function as an electronic engineer from 1970 to 2003, I had to keep on learning new stuff - when I'd come back to something I'd thought ab out earlier, technological developments sometimes permitted me to use ideas I'd come up with earlier - the twist on PWM that I published in 1996 was s omething that I'd thought up around 1975, but needed a PLD to be cheap enou gh to be practical.

That sorta worked in 1920, when Keynes the dandy floated it to his bed-fell ows the politicians. Back then, many industries were capital-intensive like steel production. A little more moolah meant they could run faster. Old ideas.

Keynes was part of the Bloomsbury set which was essentially apolitcal.

formatting link

The first of his books which mentions the "multiplier effect" was "The Mean s to Prosperity" published in 1934. He was regarded as anti-establishment, which limited his direct political influence.

owing money at railroads and bridges for "shovel ready" projects is not goi ng to fly today.

It flew in 2009 - both the European and US economies shrank at an annualise d rate of about 6% per annum for the last quarter of 2008, when the GFC fir st hit home. Unlike 1929, the various national governments started large - if not perhaps quite large enough - stimulus programs, and both economies p romptly started growing again, though not as fast as we'd have liked.

In 1929, in the absence of such a response, the US economy continued to shr ink at 6% per annum until 1933, when Roosevelt turned it around. By then, o f course it was 25% smaller, so it was growing from a rather smaller base.

You do manage to exhibit a remarkably high level of ignorance in a number o f areas.

If you had any sense you'd shut up, rather than advertising the fact that y ou are a Renaissance dunce, ill-informed about practically everything, incl uding the grossness of your own ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

probability distribution of the possible answers, an average, median or mode depending on what you ask it for. The methods used there do not always return exactly the same answer for ill conditioned problems.

simulation of one. The programmers may have designed the underlying hardware and software that supports the simulation but they can no more predict how it will behave than anyone else. The weakness with the present generation of NNs is that they cannot adequately explain their reasoning to domain experts when they appear to have made a mistake.

John Larkin's ultra-sensitive vanity has been impugned.

Sadly, Martin Brown knows quite a bit more than John Larkin, who doesn't know much and shows little capacity to learn. This does interact with John's vanity to elicit spiteful remarks about his - numerous - intellectual superiors.

There are a few people around here who know less than John - krw comes to mind - and a few who are equally ignorant, like Jim Thompson and James Arthur.

James Arthur can access more information, but he can't process it any more effectively, so what he actually knows comes out about the same.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Because Quantum Mechanics, essentially, says nothing is strictly deterministic.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.

formatting link
formatting link
- SuperSpice

Reply to
Kevin Aylward

Because it is provably impossible to derive consciousness from F(electrons, quarks, mass, energy, ...) = 0

formatting link

And many would say that a philosopher that will allow someone to give them a right good kick in the balls to demonstrate that their alleged non-existing "qualia" does indeed exist, exhibit the height of stupidity.

Their confusion is an inability to understand that there are truths that

You exist, you know that, however, it is impossible for you to prove to anyone that you do. So, Qualia clearly exist. It is the name given to that aspect that can not be derived from physics, that an individual experiences.

David Chalmers made the key point. Consciousness needs to be treated a new fact of physics, in the same way as the Schrodinger Equation was introduced as a new principal of physics, non derivable from prior physics.

Unfortunately, an unproven concept from physics appears to be used as a pseudo proof that Qualia, and hence by trivial deduction, Consciousness itself does not exist. This is the idea that, if it can not be measured in principle, it does not exist. This is backwards. That what occurs in the body after a firm kick in the balls is absolute proof that Qualia exists, and constitutes a proof that inability to measure an event, is indication of non existence, is false.

Daniel Dennett is simply confused on the matter. Qualia can not be described to anyone else, with all possible knowledge, because any aspect in the conscious loop (redness, aware, understanding) is all self referral as noted in the above paper, and therefore inherently not explainable within current physics.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.

formatting link
formatting link
- SuperSpice

Reply to
Kevin Aylward

Or just run Windows.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Probably an underestimate. Each neuron is not a logic gate, it's a powerful quantum computer. Single-cell organisms can have extremely complex behavior, and can learn things. A neural-network element is a cargo-cult parody of a real neuron. I

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Idiot. How long is it going to take to recharge a car with the 100W available for a tank heater? There is a bit of a difference between

100W and the 50kW, available at even home charging stations (where
Reply to
krw

Hi,

What about the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics? I think that shows there is no determinacy any time particles are involved.

cheers, Jamie

>
Reply to
Jamie M

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.