Understanding, artificial intelligence, and so forth

Dear Ian,

"...If it is true that a systems approach is the answer, at what point does a system become complex enough to exhibit true intelligence? This is an interesting question related to emergence. But where does emergence occur? ..."

"...It seems that there is an important connection between the notion of true "understanding" and emergence & complexity. ..."

I will reply to the idea of 'understanding' in a follow-up message. I am replying to the ideas of emergence and complexity with regard to how they relate to intelligence. I think that intelligence cannot 'emerge'. The concept of emergence, I think, is a substitute to avoid admitting that we do not know the fundamental properties from which intelligence is generated. By generated, I mean that those fundamental properties must pertain directly to intelligence itself or they can never lead us to an understanding of intelligence.

The notion of emergence merely represents the point at which we are forced to abandon our mechanical notions of the universe and admit that we and intelligence are the most important properties that this universe has given birth to,and, that we do not know how or why. It is the point where our theoretical ideas clearly fail us. I think that this point of being forced to abandon our mechanical ideas is synonymous with the probable fact that it means our mechanical ideas are artificial right from the start.

Complexity is a building process. However, it can only form structures that are already implied in the fundamental properties that that complexity is built upon. Theoretical physics has nothing to offer us with regard to the property of intelligence. Artificialo intelligence is just what its name implies. It is totally artificial. It is our pretense or false claim to have the ability to mechanically produce the property of intelligence. Any theoretical effort to imply that intelligence can emerge magically from fundamental properties that represent pure dumbness should be summarily rejected as a logical fallacy.

James

Analysis is diabolical; that is, it divides the whole into parts, and they remain unjoined until the the symbolical joining process is undertaken. Scientific knowledge has become so specialized that in different corners different persons work on very specific intellectual pursuits, while very, very few have enough breadth of knowledge to even attempt to rejoin the parts into a whole.

In one corner of science, there is the problem of understanding of how mind arises from matter (brain). In another corner, there is the problem of understanding how mind and matter form an inseparable whole (QM). Not for nothing did Bohr say "Those who look at QM and are not shocked have not understood it." Feynman said "This is the only mystery." This is a schizoid situation that we are in, and it is crazy making. Its not trivial to say that what overall picture science gives us determines our future. There are numerous other examples of how much we have broken the unity of self/nature. We are creating fragmented pictures of ourselves, other creatures and existence as a whole.

The Shamanic cultures and persons who daily experience the unity of self/nature are often branded "pre-scientific" as a pronouncement of the superiority of the scientific cultures. But from the outside, it is we who look fragmented, tormented and violent.

In one corner, people are trying to establish what linear progression in time has led to the present (Evolution). In another corner, other people have already established that time does not enjoy an ontological status, that it is a relative metric not to be understood as self-existent (Relativity). In yet another corner, space and time have been shown to not even have a noumenal status (QM).

In one corner of human intellectual activity, it is considered that survival is the overarching dynamic of existence, because... survival happens. In another corner, people have established that there is a hierarchy of dynamics with survival being only one of the lot... other dynamics elucidated include the establishing of relationships which even trump one's own survival; further, there is also expression, creativity and transcendent self-knowledge which have been established as dynamics every bit as important as survival and competition.

How shall we a construct a overall narrative that somehow encompasses all of this, and more? If we perform poorly in the Symbolical, joining endeavour, we will only deepen and extend our own suffering, as well as harming those nearby that we share the world with.

Ian,

Mind and matter are an inseparable whole (QM), so how can one exist without or before the other? Therefore, how can one emerge from the other? Mind and life are always discerned together; where there is life, there is mind also. So, what applies to the emergence of mind also applies to the emergence of life. Thus, how could life emerge from matter, if matter and mind are inseparable?

Are we at an intractable impasse?

Another issue that is i.m.o. far more interesting than the Chinese Room Argument is the following. If you have an intelligent machine, you can arrange it to be run in a fully determinstic environment. Eg., just simulate its brain inside a virtual environment.

Now, you can then argue that the physical states it evolves through can be mapped one to one to those of a simple system that runs trough the same number of states, like a clock. But how can a clock have the same consciousness as a (digital) brain?

One possible answer is that the digital brain is really running a nontrivial program. If you had fed it counterfactual input, it would have had given you the corresponding counterfactual output. In contrast, the clock can only run in one particular way. But then, one can object to this answer by asking how on Earth counterfactuals that, by definition, refer to things that did not happen, can be relevant at all?

My own take on this is that we should think of the consciousness generated by a brain as an effective Hamiltonian that describes its time evolution, instead of a physical state. In principle, a real brain is described by some microscopic Hamiltonian that describes everything that goes on in the brain. What we call consciousness should then be obtained (in principle, of course) by integrating out all the microscopic details.

If you touch an hot object then the microscopic Hamiltonian will describe exactly all the electric activity in your nerves leading to your arm being pulled back. The effective Hamiltonian describes the same process but now in terms of coarse grained variables (e.g. your fingers, your arm, but not individual nerve cells).

Now, not all of these coarse grained variables can refer to the "trivial" macroscopically observable quantities of the system. E.g. if we apply this procedure to balls that can collide with each other by integrating out the atomic degrees of freedom, in order to obtain a description in terms of only the center of masses of the balls and total momenta, we would be forced to include a few extra variables such as internal energy or temperature, entropy etc. otherwise you cannot get a closed macroscopic description.

So, you could well imagine that the effective Hamiltonian will describe the system in terms of arms, legs and other body parts, but also new variables will enter and they could correspond to the subjective things we can feel such as pain etc.

This then addresses the issue of how counterfactuals can matter. If what we really are is an Hamiltonian, the effective version which, loosely speaking, describes only the things we are conscious of, then many different counterfactual states at the micro level will be mapped to the exact same macro state. The way all these states evolve under the miscoscopic Hamiltonian completely fixes the effective Hamiltonian, even how it operates for counterfactual macrostates.

To illustrate that last point, suppose we look at watermolecules as the can be found in a cup of water at some temperature. The macro description only describes the thermodynamic phase the water is in (ice, water , steam). By studying the water molecules inside the cup of water, you can in principle reconstruct the full Hamiltonian of the interacting water molecules and that then fixes the properties of ice and steam also.

One consequence of this picture is that conscious observers cannot be thought of as living in the a single parallel universe in the Many Worlds Interpreation of QM. A precise microstate does not define an Hamiltonian. An observer having a definite conscious experience is an Hamiltonian of the form:

[math]H = \sum_{r,s}h_{r,s}|r\rangle\langle s|[/math]

where the microstates r and s that are summed over are consistent with the conscious experience. Restricting r and s to be one particular state would not yield a proper Hamiltonian.

Ian,

I think I should move slowly, selecting one point at a time. You said:

"...Note, however, that this seems to be restricted to a certain class of "organisms," i.e. there seems to be something special about biology. ..."

I think the word 'restricted' is the most revealing part of this statement. I think it is an important part of the evidence that theoretical physics is not helpful and is instead detrimental to solving the problem of the existence of intelligence. In my opinion, it is theoretical physics that is the cause of the appearance of this restriction and separation of biological properties from the rest of the universe.

I think that empirical physics and any mathematical equations that properly model the patterns seen in empirical evidence is capable of helping us remove the problem of 'restricting' our understanding of the origin and evolution of intelligence.

I think the basic problem is that when theoretical physics is included, it brings with it an interpretation of the properties of the universe that are 'restricted' to dumbness. Neither intelligence nor awareness, and any other suggestion that the fundamental properties of the universe are anything other than dumb and purposeless without intelligent meaning, is permitted for consideration due only to the imposition of a philosophical preference that is introduced, not for scientific reasons, but for serving humanistic attitudes.

I do not say this to promote religion. I say this to enable us to see that the fundamentals of the universe are responsible for the intelligence necessary to make decisions such as prefering one philosophical preference over another. If we disregard human emotional needs and concentrate on the evolution of the universe, then I think we should recognize that all effects, including all intelligent effects, must have been provided for in potential form since the beginning of the universe.

James

Ian,

Following on my previous message, I think that the universe does not have the logical breaks that we tend to see in its operation. I think that all such divisions are artificial and are of our own making. Life, intelligence, and the rest of the universe shared their origin.

"...Where "understanding" comes into this, is not entirely clear. ..."

I would say that 'understanding' is not clear at all. The first problem encountered when studying the development of understanding is the recognition that we receive a storm of tiny, multitudinous numbers of truncated almost random signs of events that have occurred. We call these tiny signs 'photons'. There is no way to find meaning in that storm unless we already know what to look for and already contain the means to understand it. The means for understanding must exist first. That 'means' had the same origin as did everything else.

Understanding in its macroscopic form is attached to complex forms of life. However, it is also attached to complex arrangements of particles of matter. It arises from the cooperative properties of that 'matter'. We have no problem seeing that all other types of results arise from the cooperative properties of matter. However, we do not know why any of these results arise. Theoretical physics offers us a way to view the mechanical type results. However, the existence of intelligent life demonstrates that matter cannot be what theoretical physics tells us it is.

James

Ian,

"First, I think it is important that we recognize that there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness. ..."

I think between the two of these consciousness is almost like an afterthought. We absorb an incredible amount of information from photons. We select, by intelligent means, patterns from a hodgepodge of patterns. We may have selected correctly, and, we may have selected incorectly. Of these two possibilities, the first gives us the data for reality and the second gives us the data for illusion. Once the patterns are chosen, we attach meaning, by unknown means, to these patterns.

The combination of meaning and patterns is used to create an image. The image is formed within our minds. We do not experience distance, we imagine distance. We imagine distance because that is how we attach meaning to some of the patterns in photonic data. We visualize distance, but do not directly experience it ourselves. We only experience photonic information locally within our minds.

Out subconscious mind performs all of the work necessary to draw a conclusion about the meaning of selected photonic information. We do not consciously experience this highly complex decoding. After our subconscious mind reaches a conclusion, its answer is transferred to our conscious mind. Our conscious mind only knows the conclusion and not the process that produced it. The processs is flawed and chancey. Our subconscious mind may be delivering a strong conclusion or a weak conclusion. It helps us out by sending along with its conclusion an emotional feeling. It is the emotional feeling that tells us if our subconscious mind is confident about its conclusion or is iffy about it.

The subconscious mind knows only what it has received in terms of patterns of information. It can conclude that it is certain about its conclusion even when its conclusion is clearly in error. This is why optical illusions work. We can be made aware that we are seeing curved lines when in fact we are seeing parallel lines. We can be made aware that we see motion when in fact we are seeing a sequence of still pictures.

A great deal of understanding is risky because, we may be understanding or we may only conclude that we are understanding. However, there are some real, permanent ways to determine at least some real understanding. I will give an example of real understanding, passed on to us by our DNA, in a followup message.

James

Ian,

Here is my example of real understanding with the means by which we may know it:

Photons signify something to us causing us to search inside our being for the store of true knowledge that is already ours.We must decide within our subconscious minds what possible relationships the photon data has to our inborn intelligence. When this evaluation process is completed, the conclusion becomes a conscious thought. A physical feeling is communicated along with the thought. If it were not for this feeling, we wouldn't know the difference between a good thought and a poor one.

This emotional feeling may be the result of either programmed behavior or learned behavior. The programmed behavior may be our response to feeling happiness. We can learn to experience happiness from possession of material things. We may smile, laugh or even shout triumphantly. However, our programmed response is very different and much more important.

Here, I am reaching for the emotion of happiness that is unique and has permanence. I will refer to it as real joy. Real joy is the feeling we experience while witnessing the birth of a loved baby. It is the uniqueness of this emotion that I wish to clearly identify.

The emotion of real joy does not cause us to laugh. It causes us to cry. It does not cause us to squeal with delight. It causes us to become mute, even possibly temporarily losing our ability to speak. It does not cause us to leap into the air. It is more likely to cause us to feel weak in the knees. It does not cause us to act proud and haughty. It reduces us to a posture of humility and humbleness. This is the kind of emotion that lets us know that this is real happiness. The kind of happines we are programmed to know as permanently real.

This is an example of our being naturally directed to fundamental truth. There is a general process by which natural truths are revealed to our conscious minds. We still must learn how to use it to its fullest extent. We are not programmed to always cry when a fundamental truth is being revealed to us. The process is more complex and varied than that. However, there must be a preset physical response, if we will recognize it, for confirming truth. If we allow our thoughts to be guided along this natural path of intelligent thought, then we can understand everything real that we are capable of knowing.

James

Ian,

As I expected, the discussion run into what I consider lacking understandig of foundational questions. To my understanding understanding is a puzzle with patterns to be recognized. At a sufficiently high or, seen the other way round, deep level of understanding, one has to be aware that ideal models like a genuine point, line, or cycle are merely approximations to reality. Experience tells us: No wheel rotates for good.

Eckard

I would like to draw your attention to my paper "Representational Formalism in Which Syntax and Semantics Are Congruent: Towards the Resolution of Searle's Chinese Room Challenge".

By the way, I do believe that the issue raised there is relevant not just to AI but to physics too, i.e. for any science, the formalism in which syntax and semantics are congruent is much more preferable.

Never mind Artificial Reality, let me waste a bit more of your time by pointing out the absurdity of the Real Reality. Why is it that our senses, which are the monitors of our individual reality, only act instantaneously? The only reality that exists is the reality of the here and the now. There and then could not have been created by any omnipotent God ever. There and then could never have been created out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago. There is no way that here and now could have evolved out of the there and then. Here and now always has to be dynamically active. Only here and now truly exists. Wherever you go and whatever you do, you will only be able to travel in the here and now, and you will only be able to do whatever it is that you are doing here and now. The creator of the Artificial Reality device will always know that it is an Artificial Reality device that he/she has created, because unlike real reality, the Artificial Reality will have to have the logical construction only obtainable from theories concerning the there and then.

Yiu need to distinguish between percieved reality and reality in general. Our perception is a sample of a broader process. Who knows what happens to present once we 'drive past it', It is reasonable to conclude that it plays a role in the foundations of the future, our consciousness perhaps a wave travelling across an ocean of awareness.

Joe, all,

Our senses do not act instantaneously. We do not perceive here and now but always observe a seamlessly stitched mental image that is a "patchwork" of delayed information giving an experience of here and now. Various pasts derived from photon data of different delay brought together by the mind into a present experience of space- time.

The present is not a single simultaneous moment in time, ever. It is an individual observer interpretation based upon data received at a particular location with temporal spread incorporated.

This is a temporally distorted simulation of existential reality not the existential material object reality that actually exists external to the organism. That external material reality has -no temporal spread-. It exists only in space. (Unlike the image of the universe, called the universe which does have temporal spread also.)

Externally there is one version of reality (matter distributed within timeless space), internally experienced there is another reality (matter distributed in both space and time)It seemingly takes time to move from one object to another and it takes time for light to reflect from objects, so they are experienced as temporally as well as spatially distributed.

The interface with the sense organs is the Prime reality interface. If other artificial data is input at that interface another different experience will be had. This is so called virtual reality. If the data input is of sufficient quality the experience of the virtual reality will be indistinguishable from the biological simulation of reality from naturally occurring external data.It will not be virtual reality, it will be an alternative reality as real as any internally generated hallucination experienced during a psychotic break in reality perception. In normal visual awareness, hallucination and virtual reality experience the brain creates the simulation of what exists.

Space-time is relevant to experiments that involve observations made at the macroscopic scale because space time pertains to the process of observation which includes temporal delay of information transfer. Relativity predicts what will be observed from different observer positions ( the image formed from light data) not the material object reality. However at the sub atomic scale interactions are occurring in a reality without temporal spread. The material object (local space- absolute space) reality rather than the space-time image reality.

I agree that here and now is always dynamically active. I would say that the atemporal objective now, which is the actual absolute material arrangement of the universe, is continuously changing. It is within that atemporal spatial reality that physical processes occur spread over a sequence of atemporal nows or sequence of spatial arrangements. One arrangement becomes another or moves from one spatial position to another. It does not remain as an existential past material configuration and does not already exist as a future configuration at a future position. The change is a ratio of change in relative local spatial position against change in absolute spatial position due to all other unaccounted spatial change including astronomical changes at all scales.Which is mostly circular type motion of various scales superimposed, not simple linear change of position.

In the current essay competition, I have based my essay partially on this argument.