Hrvoje1

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hrvoje1

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. Check this out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4309123/#idm140111704079712title 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
  7. I noticed an interesting topic here : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/15375-how-do-catalysts-work/ There was a guy RBS who had some funny ideas about explaining how catalysts work, which I didn't follow or investigate where they lead, I believe to India, according to names he mentioned, but nevertheless, there were some ridiculous reactions to his writing, such as by mooeypoo and mississippichem. Regardless of how substantiated was anything that RBS wrote, claiming that there is anything "anthropomorphic" about "knowledge" is just a plain and utter BS. I hope I don't have to prove to anyone here that anything living can possess knowledge, but if I have to, I can, and the more important point is that non living things can too, without much twisting of the definition of the term knowledge. Second point is that claiming that "knowledge" is not "beyond" "matter" is also problematic, because that is actually true, it is just not true that "knowledge" is "beyond" "nature". Knowledge is connected to information, and its instantiation is "beyond" the material substrates in which it is instantiated. OK, maybe "beyond" is not the right term here, but to instantiation of information, material substrate in which that occurs, is definitely irrelevant. So, I am not surprised RBS didn't post any more on this forum after that.
  8. 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."
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    What twisted definition? Give me one example.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage 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.
  17. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    My general point is that human is not the only being capable of gaining knowledge. Nobody objected (yet) to the claim that every living being is capable too, that is more or less conditio sine qua non of survival. Then you objected to the claim that non living things are able too, at least without distorting the meaning of the word (which we did not define precisely yet), and then you stepped back with respect to artificial intelligence, that is obviously capable to achieve knowledge superior to human's, autonomously, and to store it to its neural network, such as in case of Alpha Zero. And now, rare are people who dispute that that NN understands better these games that it plays (chess, go and shogi), than human players, because there is simple test for that. But you are still not convinced about enzymes that synthesize proteins, how would one dare to say that these molecules "know" how to synthesize proteins? Well, they do, because, if living entities can gain knowledge, and non living objects cannot, and you believe in sharp delineation between them with respect that ability, then you are vitalist. There is no sharp delineation between living and non living in general, virus is just one example, that's why it cannot be with respect to that, too. There must always be something in non living world that enables implementation of any characteristic of life in living beings (ability to possess knowledge is just one of them). If that's not true, then people will never manage to produce artificial life, and natural life must have arose supernaturally. And I don't believe that's true. Do you? Funny thing is that human knowledge how to make synthetic proteins from scratch is maybe still inferior, and we still may be producing proteins only with our bodies, but if you follow scientific reports about it, you will see that things are going in the exactly opposite direction with respect to that, than in case of AI, and we will soon be able to produce it in labs. In case of playing strategic games, our ability slowly became more and more inferior to that of machines, but in case of producing proteins and DNA, our ability slowly becomes less and less inferior to those of these complex molecules. The subject of that topic were catalysts, and not homeopathy. The subject of this thread is to debunk silly myth of anthropomorphism.
  18. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    It is, if you bring out another kind of crackpottery in the process.
  19. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    No, this is another thread about the foolishness of anthropocentrism. One instance of it is using the term anthropomorphism, without any reason or justification. I mean, I just explained to you how unreasonable is to talk about anthropomorphism in this case, and you agreed by saying "Granted", and there you go again.
  20. Hrvoje1

    The nonsense of antropomorphism

    Nonsense. I would say that if machine is capable of learning, it should be capable of knowing. Besides that, the enzymes that are capable of synthesizing certain kind of protein, are able to do so due to the information they are provided with, by DNA. If I had to choose consequently the word to describe that their ability to do their work, that would not be energy, that would be knowledge. And the enzymes are not living entities, they are just molecules, molecular machines capable of utilizing information. No, it is only bad when it is mentioned, and there is no sign of it. Such as in mississippichem case.
  21. Is it usually just a bad style, redundant, instead of concise and precise, or is it usually a sign that a content is also lacking quality? I can give you one example (that I think it's an example, you may not agree with me), for which I think it is just a bad style. The syntagm "Natural Selection" in Darwin's theory is redundant in a sense that the word "Natural" could/should be omitted, as there is no alternative to nature when we talk about reality, ie not imaginary processes but real processes. As a naturalist, I reject existence of supernatural processes that may influence natural processes, and as an evolutionist I reject existence of artificial processes, that are somehow separate from natural processes. What criteria could we establish to distinguish between them (at least in the context of evolution)? If we define artificiality as a human intervention into nature, then this is also too anthropocentric for me, and any true evolutionist should disregard that definition, because homo sapiens is just one natural species among many of them. The other alternative is to talk about "Environmental Selection" process, as it has more sense, as environment is that agent that is acting selectively.
  22. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    He wrote there much more than just these two words that I mentioned, which all determine his writing style, which is insignificant to me. However, his style of expressing of key ideas, and their uncritical acceptance by others, deserves criticism.
  23. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    As I said, about accepting ideas without sufficient criticism. When you talk about natural selection, what does it have to do with Darwin's writing? You may be an eloquent speaker or a lousy one, but the redundant expression that you transmit is always unnecessary and bad.
  24. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    It would be interesting to know would apes in that hypothetical case on their evolutionary path to a dominant species that at the end develops artificial self-reproducible intelligent conscious machines in their own image and likeness, necessarily acquire selective breeding at certain point in time as we did, and as an indicator of something, I guess their special role on Earth, at that moment? I watched a lot of documentaries about animal intelligence recently, and I was always irritated by the fact how biologists get surprised each and every time when they discover something they presumed only homo sapiens can do. I mean, how can they be not embarrassed at all while they admit that much arrogance in their anthropocentric views at nature? I was never that biased, although I never had that much resources at disposal to observe all fascinating creatures of this world, and I am surely less biased regarding natural intelligence (animal or plant) than Darwin, who thought he has to single out human selective breeding as something special in nature. Besides that, the question about apes is totally rhetorical, since in case of human self destruction, apes would most likely be destroyed too, however, robots may "survive" it... In fact, in all our great wisdom, we already managed to destroy apes and their habitat, while we still live in illusion we will not destroy us. And to answer studiot, my objection to style was never directed towards someone's writing, Darwin's or anyone else, especially Darwin's since I did not read his papers, but towards passing the ideas without sufficient criticism, and towards redundant expressions in science in general, I can mention some other examples if you want.
  25. Hrvoje1

    Redundant Expressions in Science

    @studiot Generally speaking, there is a merit in reading original scientific papers, and I see your effort to study Darwin's work thoroughly, but I think I should be much more into it, to start reading all his stuff, and I think I have decent picture about his ideas without it, from numerous indirect sources. @Sensei The work of Japanese scientists was already familiar to me, I watched not only that, but some other videos on youtube about it. And I was impressed both by their work and chimp abilities, although not surprised, because I think I am less biased than an average person (at least in my neighbourhood) when judging about animal intelligence. There can be other not yet revealed mental capabilities of chimpanzee's that are also superior to human's. But still, to produce general artificial intelligence, and artificial life, only a human is capable of, at least at this moment on Earth. If we destroy each other in a nuclear war, and they miraculously survive, then perhaps planet of the apes scenario might happen after millions of years, who knows.