Wilhelmus,

When it comes to computers/ AIs we do know the types of things that are possible, and it is not possible for computers/ AIs to become conscious. I have tried to explain what is happening inside computers in my essay, even though computers/ AIs are not the actual topic of my essay.

I think it is wrong and dangerous for prominent people to mislead the people of the world about the nature of computers/ AIs. Physicist Max Tegmark has misled people, but so have many others including associate professor Roman Yampolskiy (department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Louisville) in this essay contest. E.g. Yampolskiy includes the following nonsense quote in his essay: "Hibbard points out safety impact from incomprehensibility of AI: "Given the incomprehensibility of their thoughts, we will not be able to sort out the effect of any conflicts they have between their own interests and ours."" and spouts complete drivel about the supposed existence or possible existence of "superintelligences".

How can one respect these idiotic prominent people who should know better, and who mislead the public about an important item we use every day: computers/ AIs?

Regards,

Lorraine

    Dear Lorraine,

    I liked your essay. It was short, which is good.

    Do we agree that am artificial neural network is a function approximator?

    Are you Canadian? I'm from Saskatchewan.

    - Shawn

      Lorraine

      I agree with you that is a lot of nonsense-interpretations in the science world. As for AI you have the same opinion as mine, I think, it is overestimated. Everything that is beginning with "deep" has got a special aura, that it doesn't deserve.

      I didn't read the essay of Yampolski (I don't even know his name) but indeed his interpretations are far away from the reality as it is now. Until now the programming is purely deterministic and can be fully understood by (some) humans. He is creating Ghosts...

      What I am referring to as "respect" is only the fact that people are using their minds to try to explain their reality. Yampolski is doing that, I may not agree (at all), so I will start a discussion, if he doesn' listen, so be it, but I won't be irritated, better just laugh.

      Wilhelmus

      Shawn,

      Thanks for reading my essay. I'm from Australia, land of the koalas, possums, kangaroos and hundreds of species of gum trees and other natural wonders.

      Artificial neural networks are no different to other computers/ AIs because they all use symbolic representations of information. From the point of view of a human being something might be "a function approximator". From the point of view of an artificial neural network, computer or AI, nothing more sophisticated than high and low voltages are happening.

      To quote from my essay:

      From the point of view of a computer/ AI (not that it actually has a genuine point of view), binary digits are an uncrackable code, several layers of an uncrackable code. Computers/ AIs can't know that their high and low voltages are meant to represent zeroes and ones, and that these zeroes and ones are part of a binary digit system of representation. And computers/ AIs can't crack this binary code: they can't know that groupings of these high and low voltages are meant to represent letters, words and sentences in a language (like Indian, French, English or Chinese), and numbers. And the computer/ AI is not devoting resources to cracking this binary code; at all times the computer/ AI is doing nothing but following the path determined by the computer programmer's program.

      Dear Lorraine,

      You're welcome.

      We have bears here too, but these ones are bloodthirsty! :)

      - Shawn

      Dear Lorraine,

      It is very important that you consider the language of Nature, its understanding and the so-called "artificial intelligence". But is that LOGICS we use to understand the language of Nature? To understand the desired (initial, generating) logic of Nature is to understand the ﾂｫLOG-os".

      Why do we say "artificial intelligence" and not "artificial quasi-intelligence"? For a more successful commercial promotion of electronic machines? Will "artificial quasi-intelligence" ever be able to work on the basis of dialectic ontologics?

      All the FQXi's contests tell us one thing: Problem 邃-1 is the problem of the ontological basification (justification+substantiation) of mathematics, "queen of sciences", and therefore knowledge in general. Hence the problem of the philosophical basis of number theory.

      Why do mathematicians ﾂｫsweep under the carpetﾂｻ the main problem of cognition - the problem of the ontological basification of Mathematics, which is more than a century old?

      Respectfully,

      Vladimir

        Hello Vladimir :-) ,

        Re "is that LOGICS we use to understand the language of Nature?":

        I would think that we subjective beings are what nature is; we are not separate from it, we are not above it. But to communicate with each other, and to represent our world, we need to use written and spoken symbols. Examples of these written and spoken symbols are:

        1. Words and sentences;

        2. Equations (e.g. to represent law of nature relationships between categories of information); and

        3. IF...THEN... symbols (to represent logical analysis).

        Equations can represent fixed law-of-nature relationships between categories of information, but they can't represent logical analysis of the numbers that apply to these categories. Physics has completely failed to notice that you can't run a world without something being able to do a logical analysis of the numbers that apply in a particular situation or event !!!!

        The IF...THEN... symbols represent an imperfect logical analysis of a particular situation and its outcomes. For a particular situation:

        A) The "IF" bit essentially represents an analysis of the current numbers for the categories; and

        B) The "THEN" bit represents a response to this analysis (which is not a response to laws of nature - it is a free response)).

        I would think that IF...THEN... is one way of representing consciousness and free will. You can't do physics, mathematics or philosophy without IF...THEN... .

        Re "artificial intelligence":

        There is no artificial intelligence: AIs are not intelligent - they might have a superficial appearance of intelligence from the point of view of observers of the AI. Inside AIs, there is nothing going on except high and low voltages that are determined by the computer program and the inputs to the computer program.

        However, our construction and use of computers and AIs has illustrated the central importance of IF...THEN... if we want to represent the underlying elements that are driving the world.

        Hello Lorraine :-),

        The question is only about "grasping" (understanding) the structure of "IF ..."

        Physics gives us a scientific picture of the world: "If there is a "big bang", then born as a result of the WORDS, LANGUAGE and MIND ...

        Thus, the main question for cognition: THE PRIMORDIAL ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE.

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Is IF...THEN... an appropriate way of symbolically representing what living things do? I think it is. This is how I would describe the structure:

        The "IF" part represents the current or theoretical situation that a living thing is encountering. It may represent a person encountering a tiger or a butterfly, or a mathematician confronting a mathematical problem. The situation encountered by the person needs to be imagined as being representable by variables and numbers, so that "IF (variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2 AND variable3 = number3 .....) IS TRUE" is imagined as representing the true situation facing a person or other living thing.

        However, these variables and numbers only represent the raw light and sound information that a living thing receives from the environment: the raw categories of information are analysed by the living thing in order to acquire higher-level information about the situation being encountered. "Tiger" and "butterfly" are higher-level categories of information about the situation being encountered. So the situation being encountered is (partly) representable as: "IF tiger IS TRUE" or "IF butterfly IS TRUE".

        (But, living things can make mistakes in their analysis: a cat or a person can often think (for a fleeting moment) that a dry brown leaf blown around by the wind is a scurrying mouse. Re this essay contest: the results of analysis can be unpredictable.)

        Laws of nature do not respond to higher-level categories of information like "tiger" and "butterfly". So, the THEN... response to an IF... situation encountered, is not fully prescribed by laws of nature. Also, the THEN... response to an IF... situation encountered, is not fully prescribed by the IF... situation: the THEN... response is partly a free/ creative response to the IF... situation. Re this essay contest: the THEN... response is at least partly unpredictable.

        Do you think this has similarities to your Primordial Ontological Structure?

          Dear Lorraine,

          Yes, your example pushes thinking to the next step, to the ultimate, deepest analysis ... I ask myself the main question: what kind of structure underlies not only the "life world", any events in it, but also the Universe as a whole. Therefore, the "thinking creature" in me is an observer who is inside this structure ("inscribed" in it) and observes the ABSOLUTE (unconditional) FORMs of the existence of matter (absolute states), as a result of interaction ("coincidence of opposites") of which LIFE is born and the very thinking and self-conscious being - we humans. IN-FORMA-TION is a phenomenon. NOUMEN, which gives rise to the phenomenon of "information" - is "ontological (cosmic, structural) memory." At the heart of the Universe, the "life world", the phenomenon of thinking and consciousness lies a primordial generating (ontological) structure. The concept of "structure" is the key, basic for science as a whole. Recall the "les structures mere" ("generating", "maternal") Bourbaki in the "Architecture of Mathematics". Those, this is a structural ontological approach. It is the unity of ultimate analysis and ultimate synthesis.

          That is, the thought is constantly working on the question: what (which structure) generates "IF" and "THAT" ... that is, I try to simulate the process of generating more and more new structures and meanings.

          Respectfully,

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          I think we are saying similar things or the same thing.

          Re "I ask myself the main question: what kind of structure underlies not only the "life world", any events in it, but also the Universe as a whole":

          I would think that the basic structure is what is symbolically representable as: 1) categories/ variables which only exist as part of lawful relationships; and 2) numbers assigned to the variables. In so called "quantum events", new numbers are in effect assigned to some of the variables [1]. I.e. new structure has been generated/ created.

          Exactly what is generating the new structure? I would think that what we describe as "matter" (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) is the only thing that can be generating new structure. This generation of new structure can be represented (only after the fact - it can't be predicted) by IF...THEN... logical steps.

          1. The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment shows that such micro events can have macro consequences.

          Dear Lorraine,

          1. On the understanding of "matter". "Schrodinger's cat" will not help here ... Quantum mechanics is a parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theory without an ontological basification (justification) ...

          To understand is to "grasp the structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). This is true for mathematics and physics. Today, physics has run into "dark matter", "anti-matter", "quarks", "gluons", and "singularity". In order to "grasp" the basic structure, it is necessary that the holistic paradigm -- the Universum as a whole -- come to the aid of the atomistic paradigm ("sand grain paradigm"). Here we need a new deeper ONTOLOGY - the ontology of "coincidence of opposites".

          Scientists have such a metaphor: "Matter" = "Proteus of Nature".

          Let us recall the ancient Greek mythology of Proteus, his daughter Eidotheus, the "goddess of form" and Menelaus. Eidothea is the daughter of the sea deity Proteus and the goddess of sea sand Psamata. When the ship of Menelaus, returning from the Trojan War, was brought by storm into Egypt, where Proteus reigned, Eidotheus told Menelaus how to get his father to show him the way to return to Greece. And let's also remember that the "first entity" is FORM. (Aristotle). From "form" - one step to understanding the nature of INFORMATION, its ontological status.

          Here we need a new (old) view of matter in the spirit of Plato: Matter is that from which all forms are born. But taking into account all the problems of physics and cosmology. What are the FORMS? Absolute (unconditional) forms of existence of matter, that is, absolute (unconditional) states. Here the deepest ontology should come - DIALECTIC ONTOLOGY.

          2. About the logic. What logic should be taken to move together to the truth? And what language should we take as a basis in order to better understand each other? The language of Nature? The language of matter? What is its ontological structure?

          Mathematician Alexander Zenkin writes in the article SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS:

          "About thirty years ago, for the sake of" sports interest "I began to collect various" logics "used in modern logical-mathematical treatises. When their amount exceeded the second hundred, it has become clear: if the logic can be selected "on a taste" (or even can be constructed "on a need"), such notion as "science" becomes here simply inappropriate. Perhaps, the situation somewhat reminds the famous "Babylon" epic: the sounds - symbols of abstract speeches are almost the same, but the sense, if that is present, of everyone is peculiar. What was the end of the First Babylon is described in The Holy Bible ... "

          At the end of the article, A. Zenkin concludes: "the truth should be drawn ..."

          What logic to apply? How many "categories" and "numbers" are necessary and sufficient to "draw the truth"? I believe that the only generating logic - "the mother of all logics" - DIALECTIC ONTOLOGIC. The logic of coincidence of ontological opposites.

          Can you name another "logic of all logics" for "grasping" and "drawing" the base structure?

          Respectfully,

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          1. I only mentioned "Schrödinger's cat" because many people try to claim that micro events are smoothed out at the macro level, and can't have macro consequences. To me, the only significance of the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment is that micro events can have macro consequences. The commonly held idea that a cat could be in a "quantum" superposition of alive and dead states is a ridiculous science-fiction idea.

          2. Re "Can you name another "logic of all logics" for "grasping" and "drawing" the base structure?":

          If you are asking what underlies the world, I would say that it has always been the same stuff, back then and right now. The world comprises things (i.e. matter) that know about information relationships, are structured by these information relationships, and have the ability to create new information relationships. This can seemingly only be done in the form of many semi-independent things (i.e. matter) - it can't be done in the form of a single undivided monolithic lump of matter.

          The things are different to the relationships; the relationships/ laws are the categories of information. What makes the world come alive is applying numbers to the categories (where numbers can seemingly only be derived from relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out), e.g. applying numbers to the mass category. However, I think that the things and the relationships and the numbers are all part of the one world: there is no separate external Platonic realm of fixed forms, laws and numbers that rules the world. The world structures itself with its rules; the world rules itself.

          And I think there is no Platonic or separately existing logic that rules the world. Logic is not a rule. "Logic" is a word that describes the inherent abilities and inherently free behaviour of things: 1) analysing information about their situation; and 2) responding to this analysis of their situation. Logic is what the world does.

          I believe in the world. I don't believe in external entities or Platonic realms. We can perhaps identify the "base structure" of the world, but we can't explain the "base structure" of the world.

            Dear Lorraine,

            Thank you very much for your clarifications and answers. I invite you to look at my ideas and my understanding of Logic ("Logic of all logics"), on the basis of which Nature talks with us and my approach to the construction of the basic structure of Nature and cognition. I look forward to your critical comments and questions as this is very important to me.

            You correctly wrote earlier in the FQXi Blog regarding the modern "the world being undecidable, uncomputable, and unpredictable". The current situation in the world introduces maximum Uncertainty into the existence of Humanity. Obviously, this also depends on the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science. We all live in the hope of overcoming this crisis by joint and individual efforts to create a more sustainable joint future on planet Earth in an era of ever-increasing existential threats and risks.

            Respectfully,

            Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my essay. Basically, I contend that we and other living things (and even particles) literally embody every aspect of the nature of the world; and that physicists and philosophers have taken for granted the necessary logical aspect of the world, failing to notice or appreciate that they themselves literally embody this logical aspect. Looking forward to reading your essay.

            Thanks for the songs: "Here, on a unknown path, waiting for complex scenarios. Hope - my compass the earth..." and "My fine and distant future. Please don't be so cruel" indeed!

            Dear Lorraine,

            I look forward to your questions and critical comments on the ideas of my essay.

            With best wishes, first of all health, in this difficult time for all Earthlings,

            Vladimir

            Hi Lorraine,

            I hope your wombats, daffy ducks et al survived the fires ok. I spent much time with F&F around Aus recently. Great country in so many ways I was devastated watching the destruction.

            I had to read your essay twice to really get what you were saying, lucky it was so short! But beautifully written as always. Fascinating and original way of looking at relationships, which of course I agree with. There's no direct link between the data analysis and the laws.

            I found it particularly interesting as I addressed the very foundations of logical analysis and the Laws of Physics in my own essay, finding them flawed. I hope you find time to read and comment.

            I don't find brevity an issue and think you talk more pertinent sense in 2 pages than many do in 9. Well done.

            Very best wishes,

            Peter

            PS Whereabouts in Aus are you?

              Hi Peter,

              Yes, my ducks are OK thank you. Where I am in Victoria, we had a lot of smoke haze from the fires, but no fires. What a year for the country: heat and drought; devastating fires and loss of wildlife and forest and even the soil itself deeply burned; flooding rain; pandemic!

              Thanks for reading my essay, and your positive comments. I'm glad you get the point about logical analysis of situations and events, which I'm claiming is a necessary elementary aspect of the world, a necessary complement to the elementary law of nature aspect of the world, which can't do logical analysis.

              I look forward to reading and commenting on your essay.

              21 days later

              Dear Lorraine,

              In a comment you say that "what underlies the world" has always been the same stuff, back then and right now. I agree completely!

              As for 'logic', I found Schultz's discussion of algorithmic patterns vs non-algorithmic patterns very interesting. The limitations this contest focuses on are algorithmic. He suggests that the implied limitations on 'knowability' do not apply to non-algorithmic patterns.

              Logical analysis occurs in the mind, and you say that "logical analysis is an aspect of the world that can't be explained by physics..."

              I agree. My understanding of consciousness is as the self-interacting field, with dynamic changes induced by flows in neurons, which in turn induce changes in neurons. In such a situation every point in the local field affects every other point, and the whole process is non-algorithmic. [Of course non-linear interactions include linear approximations where appropriate, enabling 'logic', but this is a tiny part of the mind.]

              Not arguing with you, just presenting my picture which I think supports your views.

              I invite you to read my essay and comment.

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

                19 days later

                Dear Lorraine,

                I understand that you may represent lights and sounds as numbers under certain system of representation. But when you say, "living things need to be able to respond differently to these different sets of numbers", these numbers become universal, not particular to the specific scheme of representation. How so?

                You state, "This logical analysis and its associated outcome can only be represented (often only after the fact) as IF...THEN... statements." This statement does not leave a possibility for an associative processing. An associative processing results from direct activation of agents (neurons in the brain) as per the causal powers of incoming signals in hierarchy. And such processing may lead to actions, but without logically testing IF...THEN as we understand from computer codes. In fact, associative activation may also represent the relation of causal dependence of action on what the incoming signal represented, which will serve as semantics of functional or logical relation between the two and may further connect in processing where such a semantics of causal dependence statistically relates. One may ask, why do such connections form in the first place. The selection based evolution of neuronal organization can be the only basis to give rise to function of neurons that self-organize based on the statistical relevance as you correctly pointed out -- physical laws are blind to any purposeful action. As you said it yourself -- LOGICAL ANALYSIS AND ITS OUTCOMES CAN'T BE DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE -- so selection based evolution is the only path left.

                You say, "And clearly, life could not have evolved without the pre-existence of at least a small ability to logically analyse (what we would represent as) the numbers associated with the variables, and an ability to respond to this analysis." This statement goes against the understanding of selection based evolution of random modifications via mixing of chance variables. Selection and random modification are both natural physical process. Being a programmer, you may write a simple code -- think of any physical function of a set of elements with limited replenishment of resources that these elements consume. The function includes the abilities to join together in specific shapes with probabilities as atoms join to form molecules and molecules to much larger molecules and so on. Let the function also include differential need to consume resources and differential probability of replication of geometrical shapes or what ever you wish to base your probabilities on. Keep the probability differences as small as you may like. All of these functions that you coded are blind with no purpose, like laws of physics, yet, after passing of sufficient time, you will find only certain shapes are surviving, while others die out due to insufficiency of resources that different shapes needed to consume. If you observe this, then you will have to agree that any functional organization may arise, given enough time if it is better suited to survive under the blind laws of physics and enormous diversity of contexts. Even the neuronal network may emerge that represent the body conditions and their suitability limits, and neuronal function that self organize depending on the incoming signals from the environment and the the suitability of the body conditions (goals). And these neural organization may encode IF...THEN but at a huge cost of testing multitude of conditions at at each step, or simply reconnect the needful activations depending on the environmental conditions and body requirements based entirely on statistical occurrences of such relations. And such reconnections would gain stability with time requiring minimal modifications with changing context.

                You say, "Computers/ AIs can't know that their high and low voltages are meant to represent zeroes and ones, and that these zeroes and ones are part of a binary digit system of representation." Indeed, this is absolutely correct. But all states of matter bear intrinsic causal correlation with the information of precursor states and what they in turn represent that make the states a reality. Physics has entirely missed out on this, that is why physics does not deal with the semantics of information, only with the bits. Though my essay is also brief, but you may find how meaningful information arise in nature.

                Rajiv