Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Hrvoje1

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hrvoje1

    AI sentience

    Hey wtf, here are some attempts to answer the question: Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness AXIOMS AND TESTS FOR MINIMAL CONSCIOUSNESS What do you think about them?
  2. Let's take symmetry of functions as an example of regularity, others may be their periodicity, etc. If one analyzes it, one can conclude that even functions, which are by definition those for which f(-x)=f(x), examples of these are polynomials consisting of even powers of x, and odd functions, for which f(-x)=-f(x), examples of these are polynomials consisting of odd powers of x, are actually exceptions, rather than a rule, ie that functions are generally speaking asymmetric objects with respect to the x=0 axis (or plane in 3D), that do not necessarily have anything to do with those that are symmetric (even and odd). However, the fact is quite the opposite, every asymmetric function can be represented as a sum of an even and odd part, like this: f(x) = [f(x)+f(-x)]/2 + [f(x)-f(-x)]/2 = f(even) + f(odd) So, for even functions, odd part equals to zero, and vice versa. That may be surprising, that such a simple logic shows the truth that may seem counterintuitive. Interesting is however, that symmetry in a microscopic world, for example in the world of elementary particles, is exact, while in a macroscopic world, for example in biology, it is only approximate. Why is it so? By that I mean that while hydrogen molecule is perfectly symmetrical consisting of two identical atoms, neither our bodies are perfectly symmetrical, nor we can produce any macroscopic object that is perfectly symmetrical. Is there a mathematical explanation for that fact, or does this question belong to a philosophy forum?
  3. I think you are right, I believe that is a general idea on which that definiton from the paper is based on. Thank you wtf.
  4. OK, thanks wtf. I have probably misrepresented the theory from that paper a bit, so let me please rephrase my question. Is permutation the essence of reversible computation? Can reversible computation always be reduced to a permutation, ie be performed by it?
  5. Check this out: Here it says: A reversible computation ℭΠ(S) is the task of performing, with or without side-effects, a permutation Π over some set S of at least two possible attributes of some substrate
  6. Can computation always be reduced to permutation of certain states of a certain subtrate, or be performed by permutation of these, in every possible model of computation, classical or quantum? Or is it too general statement?
  7. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    When I say that my PC has memory, I don't consider that neither a metaphor, nor anthropomorphism. It merely means it can store information. It is not "ascribing a human capability to an inanimate object" that it actually doesn't have, it is describing its capability that is real and literal, and not metaphorical in any way. Pretty much every regular person that I know thinks that way. Molecules have the same capability, they can store information, and that information can have causal power, such as in case of DNA. There is no logic whatsoever that inanimate object can have such capability only if some lunatic attributes human property to it, it can only be the other way around. Living beings can have such capabilities exactly because they are implementable into inanimate objects too. Negating that, is vitalism. If that irritates you, it is your problem, and there is no redefining of words here. I don't know why machine learning system cannot know things it learned. Is it because it forgets too easily? I bet you didn't forget that you admitted how nonsensical that sounds, when you said: "Granted."
  8. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    This is a fallacy of (intentional) wrong analogy. Because my argument is not equivalent to that, in fact there is no resemblance at all. I would ask you to name something that can learn and cannot know, if I didn't know that you are just continuing, for the sake of arguing.
  9. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    In that quote there is no mentioning of "machine learning". It says that anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. It is a pure logic. I'm sorry if that insults you.
  10. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    I didn't say that the definition of "anthropomorphic" includes "exclusively". I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human. Because, if you told Descartes a few hundred years ago that animals can think, and that chimpanzee is superior to human in short term memory, he would have thought that you are crazy. Because, he knew nothing better, although he was a genius. And traces of such a mindset are present to these days, in this thread particularly.
  11. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    What twisted definition? Give me one example.
  12. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    Who cares what humans have? Why do you have to compare everything with humans, if the same characteristic exists elsewhere? The arrogance is exactly in the fact that people don't recognize it elsewhere in nature, that is the problem.
  13. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    There is nothing wrong with my logic, just don't get too distressed. You are not saying that humans have legs, you are labeling someone's claim anthropomorphic, who says about something that is not so obvious that it might have legs, that it have legs. It's not the same thing. If you can compare it with any other animal with legs, why saying it is anthropomorphic? It is not. It is a well established terminology in that domain, that has nothing to do with fables.
  14. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    If you don't know, and you are aware of it, then study things a bit first, and then return for discussion, please. See my previous reply. Book of rules does not contain strategies on how to apply rules successfully to beat your opponent, that is something Alpha Zero came up with by itself. And if it can beat the best human player thousand times, out of thousand games played, using these strategies that humans don't understand, then it understands that game better. Is that good enough definition for you? I am not saying it's not, I just gave another example of molecules storing information. If they can store information, they implement memory. We agree on definition, you just didn't understand what was my objection to its usage, I apologize if I was unclear.
  15. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    I am not talking about fables here, Aesop, La Fontaine and similar authors, there is nothing silly about them, or anthropomorphism in that context. Saying however that molecules having memory or knowledge is anthropomorphic, is silly, and this myth should be debunked, because there is nothing anthropomorphic in that claim. Not just that, take for example this: And you don't have to consider human manipulation with DNA at all. DNA is natural cell's memory that stores genetic information, which is information with causal power, which is according to David Deutsch, knowledge. That is his current working definition of knowledge. Anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. OK? There is nothing specifically technical about it. Bad logic of yours. That is not the case with Alpha Zero. It created knowledge by itself. It is relevant, because labeling some claims that attribute knowledge to something else than humans as anthropomorphism, means that you don't allow anything else but humans to have that property.