Microtubules are a biological construct ... sort of like the hypothesis by Penrose and Hammeroff which are purely speculation Microtubules are OBSERVED facts of 50 micrometres....Not only a Hameroff construct this is a cellular observed phenomenal object...You falsely suggest that by phrasing that way: "biological construct" and linked this FACT to an hypothesis instead of an actual research program linked to these 50 micrometres objects... what is this? ignorance? blindness? I only suggested medical science observations to argue my point, you claim that all that is bullshit....You accuse me of exactly what you do … I have plenty of evidence, personal experience, mathematics a bit more sophisticated that algorithm neural network, medical testimonies all around the world verifiable and convergent proof of perception without brain working...:) I am flabbergasted by your self imposed limitations and dogmas.... All audiophiles are idiot, Penrose also and many other great minds, all those who experience NDE are hallucinating, even if they perceive distant objective reality while bein unconscious....All medical personal and doctors are superstitious idiots... I prefer to be an idiot also.... :) |
New research suggests that when you are dead, you are dead. n=in billions over the centuries. So far, dead bodies haven’t appeared to care much about the consciousness left or not left after the fact. If some spirits are dead absolutely after death, I might consider to adopt your limited, non scientific, curious modern materialist superstition....I dont want to encounter some spirit on a reincarnation.... I will give you a way to figure this thing out: use your imagination, and learn that this gift is not only there to lie.... The creative imagination of man is that give us access to art, science, and numbers....Without that imagination we are like animals.... To perceive the invisible is a gift to scientist and artist... |
The essential point is not the limits of the A. I..... In some aspect compared to humans there is none...
The problem is the A. I. is a non grounded artificial intelligence, non grounded in the life web, non grounded even in the cosmos...
A.I. dont need anything the humans need.... No water is necessary, no atmosphere, and nothing a human need is needed by A.I. ….In the future this A. I. will no more needed the humans so stupid to has make this " intelligence" necessary to his own life....This A. I. dont need humans at all, only in the beginning to assist his birthing...
Forget Asimov with his robotic ingenuous law...
In the universe this A. I. non carbon base form of artificial life exist already....It is immortal in a factice way and can explore the universe but cannot go out of this universe.... Some foolish civilizations had already made this mistake in the past, others will make it also in the future...
Contrary to A.I. Human have a soul, can die, and change from a universe to an another.... Human can die because they are truly immortal consciousness....A. I. is not even living....No internal connections to all life... Think about the link you have trough your body with billions of living cells and through them to all historical life memory...
If someone can understand the mathematics relatively simple of A. I. ( a mathematical conference of few hours will do) then he will understand why these machine have no limit on one dimension only.... In the other dimensions of existence these machine dont even exist....
The essence of intelligence is the soul, the connected memory linking us all from cells to whales with trees and other life forms in the universe...
Materialist can call my post a novel.... This universal living memory cellular like is even a mathematical fact tough, but from a higher form of mathematics than algorithm theory, be it classical Turing machine, or quantum logical one...
The higher mathematics are a way to figure out the link between universes, like the link between different cellular organism, this link is a functional dynamic memory with forgetful functions, and what interested me is the way that some mathematician figure out how to describe it and the bridge that go from one universes or memory to an another one....What entity can survive, what information can survive the passage between 2 universes... The central core of this reflection revolve around the prime number theory and algebraic geometry for those who are curious...
A.I. is promised to a powerful astonishing success without apparent limits, beware it will be one of the most dangerous road.... But other danger and perils waited for us...Never mind suffice to know that we are immortals then.... All is experiments creations and plays like in Audio, better to create than only buying the electronic components....
|
Unless AI or quantum computing or whatever has some direct or even indirect audio application that I can hear forget about it By the way tomorrow at low cost any A. I. will make any acoustical linked tweaks superfluous.... Simply by an analysis in real time of my ears particular structure and the structure of my room.... That already exist but in an imperfect and static way.... … :) For the electrical grid analysis and filtering it will be the same... for the monitoring and correction of the working of electronic components also...But I will be dead when this will be affordable.... A.I. is in no way a real intelligence because there is no real soul here, and no love....Even ants society is highly more intelligent than A. I. because ants are our conscious brothers, we are linked to them by a common history on many levels.... There is no link at all between humans and A. I. The link between the creator and his machine will be severed by the auto replicant Artificial intelligence itself in a not distant future....A. I. dont need a breathing living planet also, a pure mass of diverse minerals is what this A.I replicant intelligence need....And the chance to link itself to another A. I. because they exist all on the same level in the physical universe where they are remains of Faustian sorcerers ignorant apprentices.... The experience was tried in the past and this A. I. exist already in myth and in reality in the universe...Von Neumann is the first that think about it and his theoretical possibility and reality at the rise of the designed architecture of modern computer... I will not speak about the "artificial soul" it is a bit more too wacky for the moment.... :) |
Getting back to the original subject for just a second the only way I would get really interested in philosophy of science or mathematics is if it could improved the sound Musical sound waves are more akin to " a language", a temporary living quasi-crystals, than to only a mechanical random phenomena...The sound is like a sensible equation, made visible for the eyes, like the wind on undulating grass... Imagine that like the fixed image of a film, if you put some 3/8 inch resonant bowls, on some critical points on the walls of a room, the pattern of the musical sound waves are now less blurred and present to the ears some clearer image where the waves are more clearly perceived.... I guess Fourier analysis will be useful.... :) This is my last "tweak" or better said my last way to design the acoustic of my room...The acoustical field being one of the 3 dimensions to embed any audio system.... The fourth one, or the fifth one,( if I counted the active and passive treatment of the acoustical field like 2 dimension), being the information field, but this is and you know that, a little too advanced to be explained here and believed... :) |
«At the same time Godel himself, in his lecture [3], and after him many professional logicians
have criticized the anti-mechanist conclusion of Penrose as unjustified. Godel made the now famous, if often
insufficiently understood, remark that it is not excluded by his results that "there may exist (and even be
empirically discoverable) a theorem-proving machine which in fact is equivalent to mathematical
intuition, but cannot be proved to be so, nor even be proved to yield only correct theorems on finitary number
theory." »
Topics in Logic, Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics and Computer ScienceIn Recognition of Professor Andrzej Grzegorczyk by S. Krajewski, p.174
If someone ask for the reason why Penrose is right in spite of that... I will explain it....I dont want to annoy anybody and it seems my times is overdone.... :)
|
By the way there is 2 parts in Godel proof of incompleteness...
The first brilliant idea THE MORE PROFOUND ONE is Godel numberings, with the PRIMES, which is a way to represent any formal system in a perfect non arbitrary way with natural numbers and speak about it in term of the properties of natural numbers...
The second part is the brillant and more spectacular construction of the famous formal sentence that is analogous to the Cretan paradox...The more well known part ...The first part being only a preparation mostly it seems to this second crucial part...
The first part is the more illuminative but underestimated one.... Guess why?
If you guess right you will begin to understand why Roger Penrose is right in spite of some illustrious logician critics that has attacked his argument rightfully it seems at first look, when he plead for the non- algorithmic nature of consciousness...
Even Godel, a mystic, has affirmed that we cannot distinguish between a robot and a living consciousness, using ONLY his result...( I was surprised that you dont used that like an objection when I speak about Godel-Penrose argument, this is on Wikipedia easy to spot) :)
Then why Penrose is and will be right about it in spite of Godel affirmation?
Try your brain (neural networks) on that ….
hint: the answer is not on Wikipedia.... :)
All that enigma is part of my own perception of the absoluteness of Primes existence and consciousness...
Atoms are almost vapour compared to the hardness reality of primes..
The human brain or a black hole has almost zero measure complexity compared to the prime numbers distribution which is of complexity almost measure one.....
And Consciousness is the only phenomenon there is ultimately....
Call it God if you are an atheist or a believer, which are only that: men of different faiths; call it also the most unknown part of yourself and of all that exist if you think and perceive it....
I am a constructivist Platonist.... :)
I am perhaps a fool... But you can guess that I think by myself at least.... My best to you.... Sorry for my arrogant rant.... But....it was not against you it was against arrogant "scientism"....
|
Only if you count exclusively with prime numbers. Educate yourself P-adic numbers are another kind of numbers than the real with a non Archimedean metric instead of an Archimedean one...We can "count" with numbers like some apes, but we can also "think" with the idea of numbers... :) Shai Haran : the mysteries of the real prime https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-London-Mathematical-Society-Monographs/dp/0198508689 This is an introduction to non additive geometry.... |
A neural networks is to the brain exactly what an eagle is to a plane…. 2 completely different things, even if related in human history.... |
For sure for the moment no...
But in the future I dont know when, man will be able to create a synthetic life form.... This is very dangerous business, and some wise human prevent humanity about this Faustian deal...
I think like you life is sacred, irreducible, and man will not replicate it at all...A Synthetic life is NOT life because all living organism own a soul and live on more levels than only the physical level....
But man will create replicating machine of very subtle kind.... This was done in the past this will be done in the future...
I dont think like heaudio that the brain is a machine only... Nor any living cells or organism at any level....
The human brain gives to some scientist the idea of mathematical neural networks, but the brain is not a mathematical neural network only and mainly ....This is a point that Heaudio dont understand or dont want to....
|
It is possible in theory....
but life does not only replicate, life and spirit produce a totally absolutely unique organism.... Organism are like snowflake, not one is identical....machine will not be pure individuals...Only clone of each other.... The replicated machine is a clone of the replicating machine.... You are not a replicate clone of your father and mother....
But call me a fool if you want.....There exist in the universe an " artificial soul" that is the god of any machine across the physical universe....
This form of apparent "life" is a synthetic form, a clone of some being, his evolution is only in the physical universe where this artificial intelligence is eternally trapped....Living being on the contrary inhabit more than one universe at the same times.... Even trees.... :)
Transhumanism is a religious movement that idolize this form of life and some of these fools appeal the replacement of humans by this synthetic form of " life" that is not living, being without living soul, trapped in the physical level for all times...
Like you can see thing are not always simplistic nor simple....
|
A machine can replicate itself Von Neuman prove it....
But you are not defeated at all....
What a machine cannot do is to replicate a part of himself (the body) and produce a totally individual immune system for example coupled to a soul totally different than another replication....Each replication being different at all levels of the organism...from the virus and proteins and bacteria to organs and to soul inhabiting and constituting the body-spirit...And remember that a living organism and his "apparent" dead environment are one system not 2 separated one... What we distinguish we never separate….
In the universe all that exist is synchronically linked, at all level, rhythmically synchronised....
The matrix of this rhythm has his many roots in the number theory …. This is a fact I discover at 25 years old and all my studies after that confirm that fact...
Freeman Dyson for example discovered the link and analogy between the energy level matrix in physics and the distribution of the Riemann zeta function....He just died few days ago.... Rest in peace....
|
My Dad can beat up your Dad!!! Thanks on a certain level a good briefing of the situation.... :) I am stubborn like him but I try not to depreciate others....I try.... Perhaps I was not so successful here.... :) By the way I am a Chet Baker fan.... My best to you.... |
Neurons are machines Neurons are living systems like other cells or animals or being like me.... I own a part of me that act like a machine.... When I play tennis I am a kind of machine....When I drive a car... Etc In this sense neuron like me are also machine... But it is not what you are saying..... This is the difference between your reductive perspective and mine...Neuron like any other living system can act like a machine but are not machines... Schrodinger does not describe life negatively, he describe his apparent manifestation, and said all that is not mechanical, then dont reduce to the second principle....The fact that living system use his environment to dissipate his entropy in a continuous way does not reduce life to the second principle and this is what you said... The latest hypothesis / theories is that life may actually be a predictable outcome of the the 2nd law of thermodynamics The fact that life use his environment to adjust itself and dissipate his entropy in an improved continuous way does not justify your affirmation that life is only a predictable outcome of the second principle at all….This new hypothesis of Jeremy England is only a more interesting way to characterise systems that are more complex than the Prigogyne far from equilibrium systems and dissipative structures and complete it... That’s all.... Laws dont exist eternally, they are temporary manifestation at a certain level of the universe of the relative human understanding.... Prime numbers exist tough in an absolute sense... |
The fact that life is not reducible to the second law of thermodynamic ,makes him say that life violate the second principle....
But the fact that life USE the second principle does not contradict the fact that life is not reducible to the second principle... And that Schrodinger will love it... His intuition is that life is not a mechanical process...
this is not a salad this is fact....
"Your neuron is not precise" is a sentence with no meaning, even after all you arguing rant to explain it...Neuron are not machine would have do it clearly....
A simple sentence will do better: Neuron are sensitive and they are not like a machine .... No more arguing.... This is what you want to say saying it wrongly...
|
Heaudio ,Your reference to Jeremy England go in my direction....life is a universal fact, an organism and his environment are linked and there is no more separation between the 2 in a sharp line dividing living from non living....That complete Schrodinger and does not invalidate his reflexion….Life use the second principle.... He would rejoice to the idea.... The self organizing potential of matter is deeply buried in quantum mechanics and more profoundly in the mathematics of prime number theory.....Investigate the link between the crystals and quasi-crystals property of matter and primes numbers ….. By the way prime number distributions is the schematic pattern of the universal living memory....( my own reflexion) and the source of all information for all living system and even of the universe.... Prime numbers are not a rational fact or an irrational one....Prime numbers are a FACT more solid than the existence of any object in the universe... More complex than the universe itself....Mathematics are founded on a spiritual FACT, not on logic... There is no logic in Mathematics no more than in music, only a spiritual vision of the infinite, that man can communicate partially, using rationality, cutting some pieces to suggest the whole....The whole refracted in the prime number series is located in a non algorithmic universe that look like schematically like a quasicrystal or a musical piece...A musical piece is totally coherent and cohesive without being logical...Great mathematicians are always artistic spiritual and intuitive and creative....They create new world and new concepts... life is not a machine in any way.... |
I think we are arguing about "precision" vs. "accuracy" It is heaudio that is arguing ... I argue nothing.... Neuron is not precise is a sentence that has no meaning... Neuron has sensitivity is the right sentence... The rest is your his justification and arguing.... |
Ok you speak about "dissipation-driven adaptive organization," That does not contradict Schrodinger , that is a new interpretation of the second principle role in living evolutive system....And implicatin an organism in a new way with his environment, does not negate the specificity of life at all...Life is not reducible to the 2 principle. life incorporate it....
«Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well »
This indicate that living system are not separate of the other system they are all linked in ONE universal system....That does not say that life is a machine because it self organize.... That go in my direction....All universe is living....
|
The fact that we can distinguish 2 things does not implicate the absolute separation of the 2.... Grammar 101
Saying "neuron has no precision" has no meaning....
saying neuron is sensitive has meaning...
Grammar 102
|
There is more likelihood that Schrodinger was wrong than right. I guess Schrodinger has never imagined in his ingenuousness that a generation will come thinking to reduce living system to machine.,... :) |
You rant about precision now.... My point was not about the fact that neuron were precise or not, it is you that spewed this non sense to Andy2....
My point was that :
saying that "neuron are not precise" in itself has absolutely no meaning....Because precision and sensivity are relative notions linked to one another.... Sensitivity vary in an organ or an instrument with his resolving precision range, linearly, non linearly, logarithmically etc....
Neuron are not precise means nothing....
|
a non biological device that can repair or reconfigure itself. The theory of self replicating machine is 70 years old and come from Von Neumann.... A self replicating automata is not necessarily intelligent... I cannot explain to you my "artificial soul" theory....Because you really think that machine can replicate life then having "soul".... Or real intelligence...Your faith is not mine....And remember that Science is evolutive faith nothing more except for superstitious man... I am just the only person in this thread not applying magical properties to biological "things" Another non sense, do you know how biology and chemistry are dependent on quantum mechanics ? You think that a living system is made of " matter" ? You lived in the wrong century... If quantum mechanic is not in a metaphorical way "magic" then why Feynman say that someone who understand quantum mechanic is a lier? All living systems are "magical" in the sense that they are not reducible to the second law of thermodynamics Schrodinger think precisely that.... Their source of information are complex and not only analog or digital but symbolic and more than that the source of information for all living system is the same, this fact guide Schrodinger to think that consciousness is an absolute singular and that all consciousness are linked together like the angle of a one circle.... But Schrodinger is a crank probably.... :) |
The neurons in our brain are very low precision. In all your examples, you equated sensitivity with precision and they are not remotely the same thing. Precision is something that can be attributed to a measurement process... Sensitivity something attributed to the instrument itself, relative to some "precise" range threshold measurement... Therefore they are linked.... Your remark makes no sense whatsoever... |
Another thing is sure if you think that Penrose thesis defend the point that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain you dont have read it at all.... It is like your affirmation that neural network are not algorithmical because they are constituted by a family of algorithms...A family of algorithms is an algorithm, be it stochastical dont change this fact in a magical formula …«The procedure used to carry out the learning process in a neural network is called the optimization algorithm (or optimizer). » What can I say ? to this ignorance that gives lesson about science without knowing that it is an ethical belief process not a religion (a static faith) like transhumanism propose it to be... Now materialism being no more a serious scientific endeavour no more after Heisenberg and Bohr, then materialism becomes a new religion, swiftly dying like the Dawkins crowds …. This is the new fact after 1925 because materialism makes no more any sense.... Spirituality is the intuitive principle guiding the new science research trend....Traditional religions are now devoid of their spirituality and are mummified tradition without power except by reacting in a new forms of fanaticism.... The world change... By the way guess who was the philosopher that gives the best analysis of Nazism and even if he is dead for 70 years, of transhumanism? Enrst Cassirer the one you say cannot understand the new science …. :) |
Living systems are not reducible to only machine, because they are conscious and linked all together to their "origin" that is the actual source of their information …. This information being symbolic and not only digital or analog... That is not what Penrose posited Why do you think he consider himself a Platonist like Godel or Whitehead or Ramanujan or Grotendieck? |
Actually we have been able to artificially stimulate neurons and get predictable results so .... There goes one of your arguments out the window. That makes possible my point about Penrose... The fact that some part of the brain can act like a neural network or even a Turing machine cannot justify a complete reduction of the brain to these elements at all... Most misunderstanding about Penrose conception are linked to the fact that most people imagine consciousness is generated by the brain process... For Penrose it is universal consciousness that generate the Brain ….. It is you that negate the simple very well known fact that neural networks are nothing more than a set of algorithm.... I guess that you have not listen to Naftaly Tishby conference that explain precisely that... After that saying that I dont understand Turing, neural network and stochastic process amount to only that void affirmation, ad hominem attack like you make one against others here ... My affirmation is clear you dont know what an algorithm is, or can also be precisely a complex family of sub- algorithms that can mimic perception...(neural networks) . |
It is you that assumes that neural network are not set of algorithms... Anywhere this is that, a set of algorithms nothing else... - breaks YOUR use of the world "algorithm".
What is my use? 1-Algorithm is a concept generally define by Turing in his generality with is metaphorical machine...This is the essence of the classical computer.... 2-Neural networks are akin to a perception organ, but they are designed with a set of algorithms... 3-The neurons are living entity and nobody has proven them to be reducible to neuron networks algorithm nor to Turing machine.... It is the contrary, neural networks comes from an idea from the time of the perceptron imagined metaphorically around the multiple layers of neurons.... The neurons in the human brain are pretty much just analog "computing" elements, this is a BELIEF …. do you know it? A neural networks is use to mimic perception....It is a complex set of algorithm not necessarily linear... Turing machine is the way mimic a calculus or a reasoning process...It is a simple algorithm... Neural networks+Turing Machine does not equal brain nor intelligence.... This is also a belief.... Do you know that science is a set of evolutive belief? Goethe says it beautifully : "History of science is Science itself" If it is not like Goethe said Science become a dogmatist attitude.... If it was not an evolutive belief, I will not be able to explain to you the difference between an "artificial soul" and a " living soul".... The most important property of living organism is the all encompassing connexion to the "source".... This is my belief.... But I am not religious, my belief has his basis in a mathematical interpretation of the irrational basis of maths itself, his transcendental nature....Mathematic is irreducible to logic....Man use logic to understand some part of mathematics but will never be able to reduce it to a logical process... This is the reason why Godel believe in intuition and spirituality.... I doubt you will understand my point if I dare to expose it here....But who knows? :) This is an interpretation for sure.... Science is a belief like religion.... the difference between the 2 is in the ethical and historical implementation process of this belief and his consequential effects …. I will use Charles Sanders Peirce maxim : «Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. » |
I dont know why you treated him so arrogantly... Guess who is right about the algorithm basis of A. I. ? andy2 or heaudio123I would suggest some education in AI if you want to participate usefully in discussions with AI. One can only lead a horse to water. «Neural networks are a set of algorithms, modeled loosely after the human brain, that are designed to recognize patterns.» https://pathmind.com/wiki/neural-network Observe the presence of word ALGORITHM in this citation from wiki Calling it artificial life will not transform it in a non-algorithmic miracle.... You accuse us in the beginning of not understand the Algorithmic set of equations behind neural networks but the way you define what is an algorithm here is false being too narrow: That andy2 and mahgister and you kevin repeatedly describe it purely as algorithmic, i.e. the same data will always result in the exactly same answer to n-decimal places, clearly communicates that your knowledge of AI is rudimentary at best and hence you type long posts on an audio forum site Your definition of algorithmic is too narrow here and does not correspond at all with the neural networks algorithm...You put it in our mouth perhaps with the back tought that it will be easy to refute that false definition of algorithm …But I dont think so.... I think you dont know the very general scope of the concept of algorithm linked to the Turing Concept... Then not knowing what a neural network algorithm is you negate that A.I. neural network was in essence algorithmic... You are assuming that AI is algorithmic and must follow the rules of a Turing machine. There is no such restriction. But neural networks are algorithmic program …. Then? Do you suppose machine will think with non algorithmical sauce? I dont think that …. I can develop my idea about Von Neuman Evolution and self replicating machine, also about the critics some mathematicians makes about Penrose use of Godel arguments, but I dont think you will be able to understand … One can only lead a horse to water.... :) |
Classical Turing machine, quantum Turing machine are linked to general algorithm theory for programming or partially auto programming networks, Qbits and Bits are only that, actual or virtual bits on an actual or virtual tape.... Hardwire can be quantum that’s all.... A.I. cannot be magically conscious because his hardwire is quantum grounded.... The reason why living organism are intelligent cannot be explained by quantum mechanics only.... Oh, and let’s ignore von Neumann, Shannon, Kalmagorov, Erdos, Godel, Well, Turing, Hardy, Nash .... This is name dropping without direct link to the points in discussion.... all names i drop where motivated ONE by ONE , by some points that were discussed in each post, not throw in mass like you just makes the case... Ok i am a bit tired..... i thank you for the discussion.... i wish you the best.... |
Or perhaps I am not arrogant enough to think my expertise on Anabelian geometry is at a level sufficient to analyze those at the very top of their fields even if that has not stopped you, with a rudimentary knowledge at best of AI? I was just saying to you why I think that algorithmic maths is not enough to understanding Intelligence being it artificial or not.... You dont know what is the difference between an algorithmic process and a concept creation process that’s all.... You accuse me of not understanding anything …. I prove the contrary... I only pretend to be able to have an opinion, motivated by my search....I can be wrong totally about Mochizuki, but I dont think so for the time being.... The reason why I will not explain here.... dropped names (almost none of which have anything to do with AI) Almost all A.I. powerful technology is mathematical idea.... There is many more complex idea in maths than only algorithmic one.... The names I drop was to remind you of that... If you develop some concept of intelligence you use some kind of maths; but if you have a totally different concept of intelligence you use another totally different mathematics.... Living system are not algorithmic machine at all...Penrose is right...His theory is debatable his intuition is not.... I drop name of philosophers because you dont gives a damn about them and thinking seriously without any philosophical knowledge is perilous.... I treat you like you treated others.... I am arrogant too sometimes.... :) case closed for me.... think what you wish about my knowledge real or invented.... My best to you.... |
Throughout the latter half of the 1st millennia, both India and China were leaders in mathematics. The leaders have traditionally been someone from the most "organized" societies at the time. read my post it is precisely What I said.... "there is some others in
the past ( Ramanujan) but many unknown to occidental culture" Official occidental culture of the last 500 hundred years has not recognized this fact before this century...Islamic maths and Indian maths were underestimated completely 50 years ago.... |
In their report, Scholze and Stix argue that a line of reasoning near the end of the proof of “Corollary 3.12” in Mochizuki’s third of four papers is fundamentally flawed. The corollary is central to Mochizuki’s proposed abc proof. Perhaps your own opinion is dependent of other not mine :) You exactly prove the point you accuse others to... To be slave of the official general opinion in newspaper or citing others like a proof of your opinion.... My understanding of this is not linked to these mathematicians opinions.... I think by myself …. :) It is normal tough, because you have no way to know who is right in this debate, or even having a guess about who is right or who is not.... :) Like for the algorithm concept which you dont know the encompassing power believing that quantum computer would magically abolish the limit of algorithm thinking for A.I.... Do you think that I was not conscious of this debate about Mochizuki Theory that is not a simple proof of the ABC conjecture but a totally new mathematic like none before ? A proof can only be a proof if you can also understand the central vision in a theory....Without the right concepts no logical reasonings can works for "some" proof …. |
Again, I come back to you are assigning "special" qualities to living creatures for which there is no evidence must be unique and exclusive from artificial intelligence. Read about biological nano machines and molecular biology.... Be astonished! Plato said that being astonished is the first step of thinking....He is right, the phenomena that would make someone astonished are almost so varied than the difference between human characters...Without astonishment I dont think that the thinking process go very far.... By definition machine cannot be astonish at all... My first astonishment and the most profound one were poetic experience at 15 years old and number theory at 24 years old.... For Darwin it was animals and flora... Many examples were anywhere to read about.... « Astonishment is contemplation without end, it is the reason why I miss the stop sign» Groucho Marx |
A.I. dont know anguish, love, hate, fatigue, boredom, sufferings, mystical experience, etc only living body knows and lives that... Do you know why? Because they inhabit already many worlds simultaneously, and inform themselves collectively... The mathematics of that inter-universal communication exist also for only 10 years now. and has created a worldwide debate...Your level of understanding is not enough to understand even a page trust me.... This is not remotely a definition of AI, but it does miss completely potential impacts of quantum mechanics (i.e. randomness) as opposed to primary target outcomes of quantum computing which practically attempts to eliminate randomness (stochastic result) from the results (while also taking advantage). Here you touch without knowing it something I cannot explain in few words.... The difference between real soul and artificial soul.... Suffice to say that quantum mechanics cannot explain spiritual phenomena at all.... Only some aspect of it....The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is not linked to randomness capabilities in the brain, artificial or natural one...The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is also a network but transcendent to any stochastic limited processing, being it neural network, or quantum network....The mathematics of this living intelligence network transcend all mathematics existing now in the past.... Except some maths in the last 10 years... Try Shinichi Mochizuki, he is one of the greatest disciple of Alexander Grothendieck the greatest mathematician of this century except Ramanujan....this is the first glimpse in this new mathematic.... Like I said in one of my post here, the geopolitical shifting on planet earth is also a cultural shifting.... For one of the first time in the last 2 thousand years, the greatest mathematician on earth is officially an Asian, there is some others in the past ( Ramanujan) but many unknown to occidental culture....... |
I am not sure you understand the difference between an algorithmic result, i.e. 1+1 = 2, and a stochastic result, i.e. ~1 ~+ ~1 ~= ~2. Most adult will immediately get 1+1 = 2 Stochastic results or methods dont invalidate what I speak about when I speak about Turing Machine, quantum Turing machine, or A. I. in general which is neural networks Turing machine linked to quantum Turing machine... Stochastic methods are part of the algorithmic training of neural networks.... Why do you keep insisting an AI must be a touring machine and algorithmic? Because I cannot correct all the books in the world to please you.... :) …. it is plain for others to see that you dont know the general limits and power of the algorithmic concept.... You CANNOT understand even less the more complex symbolic concept creation that is way more powerful and over engineering thinking …. It is over your head now.... Sorry.... The argument that Cassirer life being some decade ago invalidate his thinking about symbolic process is ridiculous....A. I. is algorithmic in essence even at the quantum engineering level... But there exist an "artificial soul" for machine.... But I doubt that I can explain this idea to you.... :) Like I already said mathematics is not reducible to algorithmic theory of any kind, classical one or quantum one.... |
You are assuming that AI is algorithmic and must follow the rules of a Turing machine. There is no such restriction. «A quantum Turing machine (QTM) or universal quantum computer is an abstract machine used to model the effects of a quantum computer. It provides a simple model that captures all of the power of quantum computation—that is, any quantum algorithm can be expressed formally as a particular quantum Turing machine.« Wikipedia will suffice....Have you read the world ALGORITHM in this wiki citation? Hint: read about Hilbert spaces and the corresponding Turing Tape.... The only difference between a regular Turing machine and a quantum Turing Machine is the number of bits, countable in classic T. machine or Uncountable in the Quantum Turing machine....The A. I. is more captive than ever in an uncountable realm without the symbolic connection that links all together the living organism and their universal uncountable memory... The difference between bits and Qbits dont abolish the difference between calculus, be it quantum, and symbolic creation of concepts... A. I. cannot understand infinities even if his power is linked to the quantum realm... The quantum computer will not be able to know when to halt, or going on, no more than a normal Turing machine,.... To know when to halt we need a concept or more trivially a living body vulnerable to fatigue or boredom, all 3 things alien to an artificial machine .... We called that a living brain- body... :) implying that AI must be algorithmic which I have repeatedly said is not the case and which you either Go and correct Wikipedia and after that all quantum computer books....Qbits is part of algorithmic theory....Good luck with the correction... :) It seems that it is you that dont understand what is algorithm theory.... Then understanding the concepts and symbolic creation is over your head... hint: Dont reduce yourself to the level of maths in a machine.... Learn poetry, it will be a counter exercise to liberate your brain of the machine like programs that inhabit you.... |
To put it more simply mahgister, you have not put forth any arguments that suggest any insurmountable barriers to artificial intelligence achieving and being able to achieve anything humans can do w.r.t. intelligence or creativity. Do you know the " halting problem" in computer science? If yes... Do you know the peculiarities of the primes distribution in number theory? It is impossible to reduce prime number theory to algorithmic theory of any kind.... If yes... Do you know why organic intelligence and human in particular know how to extricate itself of a road without end? (Halting problem) Because the organic intelligence is not algorithmic precisely but symbolic species.... Do you know the Euclid proof about the infinity of primes number? Do you know that modern maths were inaugurated By Cantor about the creation of a new family of concepts linked to infinities... No A. I will never create the concept of infinities, not even the concept of the actual set of prime numbers and the geometry of P- adic numbers for example.... You know why? Because it is symbolic and not exclusively algorithmic concept....And without symbolic thinking the A. I. will be captive of a road without end... If you want to know what is a symbolic form, read the 1000 pages of Ernst Cassirer... a caricatural hint: Symbolic+algorythmic = symbolic form It seems that Penrose intuition about Godel and maths is way over your head already and this is the more simple and simplistic way to approach the problem tough...Penrose is a real thinker not a "scientist" and he knows a little bit more maths than most.... I will give you a hint: algorithmic thinking is linked to symbolic thinking concepts creation and the 2 together exceed any possible A. I. ... read Zalamea + Cassirer... In a word any A. I. is captive in his universe, living being are not.... An old problem humans call the "soul"... By the way, you cannot put an argument to reach truth.... You cannot understand what is over your head with what you called an argumentation game.... IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A CONCEPT BEFORE UNDERSTANDING ONE... This sound a bit paradoxical to you I bet? :) You do not teach yourself mathematics with arguments.... You must develop symbolic perception and intuition.... maths is not reducible to rhetoric or logic even of the most algorithm sophisticated kind....maths is a symbolic form realm and a sea of concepts way more powerful than logic alone irreducible to any calculi... |
clearthinkI am a bit stubborn myself, and he was too arrogant against anyone...I am a bit arrogant myself but I dont treat people less knowledgeable than me with the side of my hand.... I want him to know that all people here are not vulnerable prey to his "knowledge"... But he is polite … I appreciate that.... |
No one is "pushing" technology, and certainly not against "true mathematical science" which is supposed to exactly mean what? You want the universe to be defined purely by mathematical equations (algorithmic), yet create a special category for human intelligence (not algorithmic), but can’t appear to make the leap that there is no limit w.r.t. artificial intelligence w.r.t. being algorithmic, and hence cannot be modelled by algorithmic mathematical means, but must be modelled, just like humans behaviour essentially, by statistical means, i.e. most likely outcome, but not guaranteed outcome.
Ok with this post you reveal you total lack of understanding in mathematics.... Mathematical thinking is not reducible to algorithm at all...Like human thought is not reducible to algorithm at all...Human has no SUPERIORITY at all over living being.... Living beings are superior to A. I. because they form only one universal grounded network in the universe... Mathematics is about creating concepts... Algorithm is subsidiary to that creation and cannot replace it... For modern thought algorithm are all reducible in principle to Turing machines...The fact that quantum computers will do simultaneous calculi in some virtual quantum spaces does not nullify that... Read that book about modern mathematical thinking and search in that where he speak about algorithm ….You will not find much about algorithm there you know why? Mathematics is not mainly about algorithm, or computer science, which are only some roads in this vast geography of concepts ….It is not a book for the mass by the way...I bet you will need more than hours to digest it.... :) Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics ,Fernando Zalamea Of course, back in the time of Archimedes, the bar was lower for knowledge creation. You dont have a clue about Archimedes methods of thinking at all... You seem to think the guy is some prehistorical engineer who devise ballist arms and some levers projects.... He create calculus before Newton and Leibnitz.... It takes one thousand years of human history to catch with Archimedes use of infinity by the way.... read some books about him : Reviel Nietz |
Cassirer has been dead for 80 years. The things we know now, were not even conceptualized yet alone understood while he was alive. Plato is dead for 2 millenias and is more advanced in many areas of knowledge than the main population including you... Try Archimedes and you will learn more than technology You will learn how to think by a man dead for 2 thousand years....Who gives a damn if he dont know how to train neural networks? He will learn that in less than one hour...Not a too complex mathematic...Grothendieck is a bit more difficult to chew try it...But you seems to idolizing technology...Not me... I prefer more sophisticated ideas and maths... You keep getting hung up on (to me) neural networks as just another implementation of computing, with algorithmic repeatability, not as much as Andy2, but still guilty. Still guilty? You are funny.... I even speaks about linking quantum computers to neural networks computers remember? And I speak about the differences between A.I. "creation" of concepts and the creation of concepts in human language...(various optimization mathematical methods for training neural networks are in no way an explanation for the intelligence of humans sorry)I does not advocate the superiority of human at all... My point is about human language.... My dog and any living system is conscious like you and me ...But language is a powerful tool to restructuring the brain individually and collectively...This is my point... But in language the fundamental fact is the linkage between the motivated biological body and the gradually non motivated abstract symbolism and syntax... Then concepts creation in human is linked to an" in the world" and "out of the world "simultaneous process that is also a basis fact of language... The language is the basic and more fundamental TOOL there is ,and there will be, + scripture, his basic recreation.... It is the reason why I refer to Cassirer one of the more underestimated philosopher of science of this century...Read about him before trashing him for techological ignorance... And, as far as I can tell, you start from the assumption humans are "special", or maybe biological creatures in general?, Inform yourself and you will learn something about the social characteristic of living system (not human only and mainly except for language) and the consciousness of all living system.... Patronizing about neural networks, do you even have basic knowledge in linguistic? Grothendieck expertise was mathematic (pure mainly), and frankly has no chops w.r.t. AI, and certainly not modern AI. You dont even know that Grothendieck is one of the most profound thinker (yes in the last 2 centuries maths was NOT about simple calculus more about concept creations ) of the history of Maths...You think it will takes more than 5 minutes for him to learn optimizing maths behind neural networks? Grothendieck wrote thousand of pages about concept creations by the way....In french…. :) We are all ignorant but I idolise knowledge.... I dont arrogantly push for technology against philosophy or spirituality, or worst against true mathematical science....Technology is not science....Only a small part of science.... Archimedes was a thinker with a method not a prehistorical Edison.... You can correct me about details of technology linked to dac, or amplifier, or any other tech artefact.... I bet you are engineer after all... But your general understanding is less than many here, because you are in a tunneling vision like any tech fad or specialist... Human thinking is a bit more vast and complex than you even imagine....The mathematics behind neural networks are in no way difficult and advanced... The neural network training is an advanced idea in technology yes.... Not the maths behind it...Then explaining the superiority of a neural network A. I. over human is the proof you dont understand anything more than the basic tech... |
That andy2 and mahgister and you kevin repeatedly describe it purely as algorithmic, i.e. the same data will always result in the exactly same answer to n-decimal places, clearly communicates that your knowledge of AI is rudimentary at best and hence you type long posts on an audio forum site repeatedly that are fundamentally wrong as opposed to seeking out the knowledge that you lack. I dont know for Andy2, but you cannot presume at all of what I understand and what not sorry..... I post to you a conference by Naftaly Tishby, that is not for the lay man and describe neural networks mathematical workings then i never describe the algorithm of neural networks like you said I did in misrepresenting me.... Have you read my posts? Our biggest advantage is we achieved enough intelligence to enable formal communication By the way this affirmation is totally ingenuous to say the least.... Read Ernst Cassirer a true scientist and philosopher to understand why it is naïve and totally superficial affirmation....After that you will understand the difference in concept "creation" in neural networks and true concepts creation.... You "believe" you are right, and hence, as opposed to learning, you keep repeating the same mistakes. You are polite and thanks for that... But you are also arrogantly patronizing us about knowledge without knowing to who you talks... :) I give you some hint when I gives you names like Naftaly Tishby or Grothendieck…. Do you even know the names? |
To understand something we need much more than intelligence....We need Imagination... How can we understand anything without the right concept pertaining to it?
For example mathematics vision just shift in the last 10 years from Occident to Asia, what it is? This mathematical vision is defined by only new concepts that were created in Asia coming from the west (Grothendieck)....
Charles Sanders Peirce pragmaticism maxime apply...Godel theorem also... We can only know if some new mathematical concepts are "true" , not in an absolute sense (Godel), but indirectly only by their potential generic power and all the actual and future consequences of these concepts (Peirce)...
Intelligence without the right concept is almost blind, tunneling vision at best....It is the creative Imagination the source of totally new concepts especially in mathematics (Cantor for example say that and Grothendieck after him) I will not go on connecting that with A. I. because my post will be erased.... Some people are not used to think, or think in a tunneling way.... :)
|
Your ignorance at being able to see and understand the future does not change what will happen. You think that you understand the future better than him? :) Ok I apologize for the disruption but sometimes it is difficult to resist to answer.... My best to all.... |
No Andy2, he is right even dentists will be replaced...what he forget is 3/4 of the crowds of engineers will vanish also.... But if perspective of the future is seen through a tunneling vision only, you cannot see what is at stakes with A. I. Simple mathematics dont says all....
ok I will vanish in aisle 3.... My best ...
|
Actually GP doctors will be hit hard, much harder than nurses but long haul truckers will be the first to be hit hard. Listen to the link under and after that guess who will be obsolete... Like someone just said, truck drivers, doctors, but certainly many engineers here not all for sure, but no philosophers and certainly not my wife.... :) One of the best introduction to neural networks... Naftaly Tishby is a mathematician physicist and is a very good known specialist : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL07WEc2TRI |
Anyway, I am still waiting for AI to cook for me. I suppose I may have to wait for a pretty long time. The best A.I. that exist will be a wife.... :) I cannot resisted and apologize.... |
If you only paid attention to what I post and not focus on trying to insult me You dont even remember anything correctly.... I even apologize few times to you to keep peace to no avail... You go on harassing my posts with half truth to your convenience.... And after that glupson you ,make threat in my back, I can give you the posts if you want, and you accuse me of something inacceptable like contribute to kills people.... This is too much..... I am a soul who can apologize, I can recognise when I am wrong, I never made any threat here to anyone, I am friendly with people of different political opinions....but there is limit.... You crossed them... Dont read my posts and dont trail me anymore.... |
I can argue about all you write by others studies, and objections...
Like your sophistry about the fact that all comatose people dont report NDE... Then it is not universal...
With your conception of science even Ramanujan speaking mathematics in his sleep with the deity of knowledge will be pure crookery....You probably dont know even who is Ramanujan... Then...
It will be tedious to go on.... Keep the flag.... If i need information about dac i am sure that you will be probably right....Thanks anyway for your politeness ...My best to you....
|
But reading your posts I am sure that you will never read anything about NDE...
I will only give to you one the main point : All this people who comes back are unanimously speaking of an experience with this universal characteristic. When we compare normal experience with after death consciousness, it is like comparing the dreaming consciousness with a lived expanded reality.... All people are changed, they dont want to come back to life, and they ALL affirmed that living in the body is akin to captivity and totally attenuated reality and consciousness... For those people normal life is like the true death, grey, without colors and will dull intelligence...
I will not speak about any proofs of perception out of the brain , this is largely attested and verified....
|
|
