Popcorn Sutton

You guys want my opinion? I think elections are bullshit. We need a revision It's probably not going to happen though. I just think that voting was the latest and greatest before the age of info. We could really change things for the best if we just used data. Whoever agrees with that will get about 15 votes from me and my friends.

I think you made a good point with this post. I've been trying to get my program to run nonstop but it keeps getting an error and it stops after that. I'm working it out today.

There is a chance that we have been visited by AI in the past, but we may never have had the chance to dissect them, especially if they've found a way to defend themselves. It would be interesting to see this scenario. I have to admit that I do have fear about the whole situation, but in the meantime we should be thinking about how to keep it under control and keep it useful for our mutual purposes. It's really not that bad that computers are only able to do what they have been programmed to do, but I can see the scenario that one person just happens to get it right and it lives a life of its own from there.

Here's my equation, it's evolved slightly over the years but here is what sums it up. u = y(o) t = y(u) m = P(u|t) u = unit of knowledge y = any positive whole number including zero o = any occurrence t = time m = mind P(...) = Probability of ... if P(y+1(o)|y(o)) > 50%: u = y(o) + y+1(o) ^That's how you get the parameter of a unit and determine a point of interest. t = ({u : (y(u))}) ^This is how you make a tuple out of units so the program can be specialized and will remember who is who and how they should be treated. maximum = 0 if P(u|t) > maximum: output.append(u) maximum = P(u|t) ^With respect to the location of a unit given the point of interest, if the unit is currently the most probable, add it to the output. This is the mind. While I was reviewing it, I realized that we went on for quite some time. I like the debate, sometimes you can come to a new consensus by doing so, but I don't think that it will be anywhere near as exciting as it was back in 2009

I don't get it. Can you clarify on this? I'll admit that I am a fanatic on this front, but I don't fantasize without logic and experience. That was wayy philosophical on my part and I have to apologize. Since I have some time to kill, I'm going to review the first few pages of this thread.

I doubt that Rand will get elected if he takes a stance on the main issues such as abortion. He really shouldn't be saying that abortion will be illegal if he gets elected. I know a few people who got abortions and, yes, they all regret it but, at the same time, women are scared of giving birth. Long story short, don't do that Rand, the worst part is that it's completely irrelevant to economic growth. What we need is someone who will make changes quickly and not tarry on irrelevant issues. We need a president who will keep up the pace and take a few steps further, someone who can predict what needs to happen before it becomes significant. There needs to be a better division of labor.

I think that Ron left enough of a legacy. It would probably be a good idea to have a follow up.

I haven't read the entire thread yet but I think that Ron Paul has a lot of the vote where I'm located. People like a few aspects about him.

As a task or as a scholar? If you want to help fight death I'd suggest using computers to analyze the DNA rather than textbooks.

Did somebody say math?

I think that we have done a very good job at surviving. That's something that our species does really good.

I'm saying that information is identified faster than the speed of light. Statistics shows that in order to come across this same exact pattern that we call earth, we would have to travel approximately 11 trillion light years to get there, but if you "die" and come back to life 11 trillion light years away, if you woke up and nothing has changed or happened, then you traveled 11 trillion light years in a single moment. I'm not going to get into how the universe came around, all I know is that it requires input in order to have length. Forgive me for not making good quotations, but, are you a fanatic? What's your expertise? Mine is computational mind. Philosophy and Computational linguistics more particularly though. The universe may cause me to want something, but the real question is who am I?.

CMT is not about "electrical patterns". Pattern recognition is a fundamental tautology of the theory and I don't think that that will be disproved, not now, not ever. Pattern recognition is quantum IMO, it happens instantaneously across every possible instance of any particular pattern. What you are thinking right now is also being thought by you, who is approximately 11 trillion light years away, and the next you who is 11 trillion light years away from that. Say hello to everyone in the universe right now and see what you think. It could be a very enlightening experience, or you may not think of it as enlightening at all. When I first thought, "holy crap, I could be talking to everyone in the universe right now", I heard about 20 or so "WHAT!?!?"s simultaneously. It was epic to say the least. IMO, dimensions don't exist. Nothing but points of interest exist. I don't think I'm wrong on that one, and you'd have to be pretty genius to make me think otherwise. You can't touch anything either by the way. You can get close, but you'll never quite touch anything. Equations, at best, point you in a direction that has been, or at least will be, useful. Equations help us make money and have a stable job. They give us something interesting to do. You can have the potential to desire anything you want, but let's be realistic, I'm not about to sprout wings and fly south. I have no control, absolutely none, and I've come to terms with that. It doesn't stop me from wanting to be a better person, but all I can do is wait until the time is right, for anything, at any moment.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Knowledge and length are essential, free will is just a fantasy. I don't get why people are holding on to the belief in freedom so dearly, especially if they claim to be scientists. I thought this issue was settled back in 2009. It's not the job of a scientist to ponder freedom; I think it should be a toy discussion amongst philosophy students.

When I first started working on AI, I only put the first unit to emerge in the output as opposed to adding all of the units with equal likelihood. The reason I did that is because it was way more grammatical that way. Length is absolutely essential because you need to stop the recognition of patterns when the length of the point of interest + the next point of interest is equal to 0. Time is just a label for a particular object, and that object is best suited as a tuple. A tuple contains all possible objects within it, and by making time a tuple, the program is WAY more efficient than using a dictionary, or even worse, a string. You need to take dispositions into account as well so the program can specialize it's output so it's not only context sensitive, but it has an attitude as well. That's the main reason for my logic that time is a tuple. I'm not working on the output aspect of AI yet though, and I think that it won't be necessary for the purposes of this business. I do a lot of machine learning though.

I doubt that will happen, but the only reason I say that is because it cannot exist within the context of AI. I don't see any way that it could exist in a physical sense though. The only example that may be taken as a physical isomorphism of choice is whether the photon both goes through a mirror and gets reflected. Given that, you'd have to ask what that has to do with the mind. I'm assuming that our heads would explode if we were faced with a 50% likelihood of two options, or even worse, greater than two options. "BOOM" my mind just exploded

Lately I've been preferring absolute precision with the algorithm. It's going to take a boatload of examples to recognize what someone is saying, but I think that it's worth it in the long run so you can identify and specify who is who. At this point, Siri will call my other friends by my own name and I suspect that it's because it uses averages to determine speech to text. When you say semantics though, I've learned semantics but it's not useful for my purposes. When you're trying to build a computational mind, you need three things necessarily. You need to recognize sequences of occurrence, reduce the possibility of randomness, and prompt correlating bits. Beyond that is output, which is not necessary for a computational mind but is necessary for verification purposes.

To me it seems pretty simple but I could be horribly wrong. I've described it several times here but I'll give another example. Let's assume that we know exactly how the system is ordered. Input- Hello Emergence- HelloHeyHelloHiHelloWhats upHelloHeyHelloHow are you?HelloWhats upHelloWhats up Max = 0 For u in emergence; If gen > Max Max = gen output.append Output = [hey, What's up] Do you see what I'm getting at? The reason I think that it's this way is because the output is something you would expect because it's grammatical. Also, in my experience using this method, it will get reference right. It's context sensitive. So after a few other inputs, it still knows what you're talking about. I also assume that a quantum gravity mechanism is necessary for both solidification of knowledge and prompting of information. Neurologists are on the right path. If you watch Stuart Hammerhoffs discussion on the CMT, you'll see what they're getting at. The problem, as he states it and of which I completely agree, is that even if our computers are good enough to become conscious, the AI guys are going to need to order the system with perfect precision. Some people, a lot of people actually, tend to use a rule based approach (especially when it comes to language), but that method alone is completely incoherent because how many arbitrary stipulations that are seemingly necessary for that particular method. If you use only statistics, it eliminates any arbitrary stipulations. The goal is to make the system as efficient as possible, and statistics does that. But, if you look at the minimalist approach, they prefer to make the system as simple as possible, but it's no where near simple. It's confusing as hell and it makes any logical student of linguistics hate studying the subject because of the learning curve. Merging the two approaches is fine because then you have control over what the program does.

It's a hierarchy of discreet bounded finite bits of knowledge. IMO, only the strongest bits are coherent from a higher level perspective, but if you were to take a look at the whole ensemble, it would be very difficult to know which bits are conscious or not until you enumerate them.

How would you prove that I am conscious?