From: David Steuber
Subject: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <87hd5hfb3g.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
Oh, Hi! I'm just trying to get going at work and I don't get to write
Lisp here :-(. I've not been doing any programming in my free time
either because life is still a bit hectic. However, I do have a high
definition version of Xeno's Xoom on the way. Perhaps it will be
finished before Christmas. It will be just like the current one
except that the resolution will be 1280x720 @ 30fps. I'm also likely
to do a palette animated version.
Bored to death at work,
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F)
It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <1yzWf.735$oc4.502@fe09.lga>
David Steuber wrote:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
> Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>
> The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
> one knows how self awareness works.
Poorly. From http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32281.html:
> O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
> Robert Burns, Poem "To a Louse" - verse 8
> Scottish national poet (1759 - 1796)
>
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
From: Matthew D Swank
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <pan.2006.03.29.20.30.31.32133@c.net>
Cobol
--
"You do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to your grandmother." — Albert Einstein.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzl4q1gwn6e.fsf@OSX663.local>
Matthew D Swank <·······································@c.net> writes:
> Cobol
That's where the Cylons are from, isn't it?
Matthew D Swank <·······································@c.net> writes:
> Cobol
The question of whether computers can think is just like the question
of whether submarines can swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
--
a slow day in c.l.l. is like
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
On 2006-03-29, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> Subject: What language will be used to write the first self aware
> program?
Already been done. See "Biology", built on top of "Chemistry", built
on top of "Physics".
-- L
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <87odzoseyi.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
> On 2006-03-29, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> > Subject: What language will be used to write the first self aware
> > program?
>
> Already been done. See "Biology", built on top of "Chemistry", built
> on top of "Physics".
I wasn't aware of that.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F)
It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
> Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>
> The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
> one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
>
> Oh, Hi! I'm just trying to get going at work and I don't get to write
> Lisp here :-(. I've not been doing any programming in my free time
> either because life is still a bit hectic. However, I do have a high
> definition version of Xeno's Xoom on the way. Perhaps it will be
> finished before Christmas. It will be just like the current one
> except that the resolution will be 1280x720 @ 30fps. I'm also likely
> to do a palette animated version.
>
> Bored to death at work,
This program is self aware:
;; QUINE-3 generates and returns a new tree equal to the sexp defining
;; QUINE-3 itself.
(DEFUN QUINE-3 NIL
(LABELS
((FIND-CAR
(TOKEN TREE)
(COND
((ATOM TREE) NIL)
((EQ TOKEN (CAR TREE)) TREE)
(T (OR (FIND-CAR TOKEN (CAR TREE))
(FIND-CAR TOKEN (CDR TREE)))))))
(LET* ((SOURCE '(DEFUN QUINE-3 NIL
(LABELS
((FIND-CAR
(TOKEN TREE)
(COND
((ATOM TREE) NIL)
((EQ TOKEN (CAR TREE)) TREE)
(T (OR (FIND-CAR TOKEN (CAR TREE))
(FIND-CAR TOKEN (CDR TREE)))))))
(LET* ((SOURCE ':QUINE)
(QUINE-3 (COPY-TREE SOURCE)))
(SETF (CAR (FIND-CAR :QUINE QUINE-3)) SOURCE)
QUINE-3))))
(QUINE-3 (COPY-TREE SOURCE)))
(SETF (CAR (FIND-CAR :QUINE QUINE-3)) SOURCE)
QUINE-3)))
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The mighty hunter
Returns with gifts of plump birds,
Your foot just squashed one.
On 2006-03-29 13:28:25 -0500, Pascal Bourguignon
<······@informatimago.com> said:
> This program is self aware:
Maybe you were joking in which case you can ignore this - do however
include a smiley in your next sarcastic post if you please- but your
quine is self-replicating, not self-aware. A virus is self-replicating
but I don't think you'll find any philosophers or neuroscientists who
think that a virus is aware, let alone self-aware.
The language in which intelligence will be created in is arbitrary.
This is because the structures in a mind that makes it intelligent are
rather removed from the operations that make it actually work. For
example in the human mind the exact composition of neurons is
irrelevant, only that they work. Thus a language with the ability to
inspect its self at runtime may be useful in wrriting complex programs,
but this feature wouldn't be immediately available to the intelligence.
Consider this: when you reflect on your experiance your reflection
does not contain knowledge of the chemistry of the mind. We can thus
conclude that such reflection asises in a higher level of the mind, not
at the low level that corresponds to programming instructions. I
suggest you read "Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind" By David W
Smith if you want to learm more about the mind and self knowledge.
········@uci.edu writes:
> The language in which intelligence will be created in is arbitrary.
> This is because the structures in a mind that makes it intelligent are
> rather removed from the operations that make it actually work. For
> example in the human mind the exact composition of neurons is
> irrelevant, only that they work. Thus a language with the ability to
> inspect its self at runtime may be useful in wrriting complex programs,
> but this feature wouldn't be immediately available to the intelligence.
> Consider this: when you reflect on your experiance your reflection
> does not contain knowledge of the chemistry of the mind. We can thus
> conclude that such reflection asises in a higher level of the mind, not
> at the low level that corresponds to programming instructions. I
> suggest you read "Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind" By David W
> Smith if you want to learm more about the mind and self knowledge.
Yes, but you can deny that a (human) brain workings involves modifying
itself (adding, removing neurons). So the program corresponding to
the neurons biology may be fixed and non-retrospective (~ the lisp
implementation), but the program above it, the one corresponding to
the brain functions, will probably be quite retrospective and self
modifying.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
Ah yes, but you don't directly program anything at the level above it,
it emerges from the the underlying structure, like gliders in life.
Thus the talk of programming this higher level is somewhat meaningless,
as it is not feasable. So in answer to the original question no
programming language is the most likely candiate for the first self
aware artificial mind, they are all equally capable of creating the
underlying structures.
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442C8B37.1C69AF1@freenet.de>
So this structure says:
"I am."
The programmer asks:
"What are you?"
Do you think any human will understand that answer?
ps:
There is an experiment runing with communication between robots. The
"pip, piip, schrrr."-nois describes where on the floor a ball is laying
and one robot informs the other about the position relativ to the own
position.
stefan
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-03-29 13:28:25 -0500, Pascal Bourguignon
> <······@informatimago.com> said:
>
>> This program is self aware:
>
> Maybe you were joking in which case you can ignore this - do however
> include a smiley in your next sarcastic post if you please- but your
> quine is self-replicating, not self-aware. A virus is self-replicating
> but I don't think you'll find any philosophers or neuroscientists who
> think that a virus is aware, let alone self-aware.
Well, ok, it was a joke. But note that this quine knows itself enough
to know where it must insert itself into itself.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
On 2006-03-29 19:19:34 -0500, Pascal Bourguignon
<······@informatimago.com> said:
> But note that this quine knows itself enough
> to know where it must insert itself into itself.
At the risk of being pedantic I'll point out that this is just
anthropomorphism - the code knows nothing about where to insert itself
- you, its programmer do. If I altered your quine so that it inserted
its code in the wrong place, neither the source code that makes up your
quine nor the common lisp implementation it was running on would notice
this alteration - it would simply execute incorrectly.
David Steuber wrote:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
> Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>
> The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
> one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
>
> Oh, Hi! I'm just trying to get going at work and I don't get to write
> Lisp here :-(. I've not been doing any programming in my free time
> either because life is still a bit hectic. However, I do have a high
> definition version of Xeno's Xoom on the way. Perhaps it will be
> finished before Christmas. It will be just like the current one
> except that the resolution will be 1280x720 @ 30fps. I'm also likely
> to do a palette animated version.
>
> Bored to death at work,
It depends on how self awareness is defined. I think Cyc once asked
what it was, and who operated it. Its operators replied to both
question, and it now knows. But this does not show that much about
intelligence since the question emerges fairly directly from Cyc
attempting to gather knowledge.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <%OOWf.85$hP5.29@fe08.lga>
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> David Steuber wrote:
>
>>Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
>>Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>>
>>The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
>>one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
>>
>>Oh, Hi! I'm just trying to get going at work and I don't get to write
>>Lisp here :-(. I've not been doing any programming in my free time
>>either because life is still a bit hectic. However, I do have a high
>>definition version of Xeno's Xoom on the way. Perhaps it will be
>>finished before Christmas. It will be just like the current one
>>except that the resolution will be 1280x720 @ 30fps. I'm also likely
>>to do a palette animated version.
>>
>>Bored to death at work,
>
>
> It depends on how self awareness is defined. I think Cyc once asked
> what it was, and who operated it. Its operators replied to both
> question, and it now knows.
My Googling indicates "If you ask it, it can tell you." Big difference.
> But this does not show that much about
> intelligence since the question emerges fairly directly from Cyc
> attempting to gather knowledge.
>
So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what about
/me/? Where is that?
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
On 2006-03-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But this does not show that much about intelligence since the
>> question emerges fairly directly from Cyc attempting to gather
>> knowledge.
>>
>
> So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
>
> The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
> says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
> about /me/? Where is that?
I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
we can answer this question. :)
-- L
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <87lkurs6jl.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
> On 2006-03-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But this does not show that much about intelligence since the
> >> question emerges fairly directly from Cyc attempting to gather
> >> knowledge.
> >>
> >
> > So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
> >
> > The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
> > says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
> > about /me/? Where is that?
>
> I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
> we can answer this question. :)
That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F)
It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <%H1Xf.526$iu3.24@fe12.lga>
David Steuber wrote:
> Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
>
>
>>On 2006-03-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>But this does not show that much about intelligence since the
>>>>question emerges fairly directly from Cyc attempting to gather
>>>>knowledge.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
>>>
>>>The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
>>>says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
>>>about /me/? Where is that?
>>
>>I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
>>we can answer this question. :)
>
>
> That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
>
Buddha concluded that the self is an illusion. Quite liberating.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
> >>I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
> >>we can answer this question. :)
> >
> > That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
>
> Buddha concluded that the self is an illusion. Quite liberating.
>
But what is the point of liberating an illusion. Ah yes, points are
also an illusion :) This illusion is feeling liberated already.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <4l3Xf.69$Pu7.32@fe08.lga>
Eric Lavigne wrote:
>>>>I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
>>>>we can answer this question. :)
>>>
>>>That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
>>
>>Buddha concluded that the self is an illusion. Quite liberating.
>>
>
>
> But what is the point of liberating an illusion. Ah yes, points are
> also an illusion :) This illusion is feeling liberated already.
>
There ya go. Our arms too short to play gotcha with Buddha-mon.
The illusory self is not being liberated, it is being shed. What remains
is Buddha nature, aka "big mind". Pure awareness and compassion.
Non-discriminating. No attachments. Just sit.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
On 2006-03-31 00:42:28 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> There ya go. Our arms too short to play gotcha with Buddha-mon.
>
> The illusory self is not being liberated, it is being shed. What
> remains is Buddha nature, aka "big mind". Pure awareness and
> compassion. Non-discriminating. No attachments. Just sit.
Zen Master Huang-po therefore says:
"That there is nothing which can be attained is not idle talk; it is
the highest truth."
Ken Tilton wrote:
> David Steuber wrote:
>
>> Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>> On 2006-03-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But this does not show that much about intelligence since the
>>>>> question emerges fairly directly from Cyc attempting to gather
>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
>>>>
>>>> The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
>>>> says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
>>>> about /me/? Where is that?
>>>
>>>
>>> I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
>>> we can answer this question. :)
>>
>>
>>
>> That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
>>
>
> Buddha concluded that the self is an illusion. Quite liberating.
>
> kt
>
The Buddha was an excellent psychologist and a horrible metaphysicist.
Would you like a religious flame war? Y/N/Cancel
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <nYcXf.2$Pm2.0@fe08.lga>
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> David Steuber wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2006-03-30, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But this does not show that much about intelligence since the
>>>>>> question emerges fairly directly from Cyc attempting to gather
>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So "Mommy, where did I come from?" does not count? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
>>>>> says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
>>>>> about /me/? Where is that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
>>>> we can answer this question. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is the question that keeps me wondering about life.
>>>
>>
>> Buddha concluded that the self is an illusion. Quite liberating.
>>
>> kt
>>
> The Buddha was an excellent psychologist and a horrible metaphysicist.
>
> Would you like a religious flame war? Y/N/Cancel
>
Sure, you know me. But... Buddha was not religious, so we will have to
flame about something else... your anger? :)
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <P8edna2sVqSsOLHZRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> wrote:
+---------------
| Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
| > The breakthru has happened when we tell the system what it is and it
| > says, OK, I see all that, the hardware, the software... but what
| > about /me/? Where is that?
|
| I predict we will not be able to construct a self-aware program until
| we can answer this question. :)
+---------------
Although perhaps the question is badly-formulated. That is,
the question presupposes that "me" is a "thing" that "exists".
What if that's wrong?
Buddhism (of the Madhyamika tradition, at least) would say
that you can never find such a "thing" as "me", no matter
how long you look, that the sense of "me" (or "I") is a false
identification of "thing"-ness to a perceived similarity in
the various patterns that arise, dwell, and dissolve in the
processes of the mind-body complex. We take a sense of awareness
from yesterday (or 5 minutes ago or 25 years ago) and incorrectly
declare it to be EQ (in the Lisp sense) to some sense of awareness
that is occuring in the moment (or more likely, that occurred a
moment ago), when in fact not only is it *not* EQ, it's not even
EQUALP!! Nevertheless, sentient beings have an incredibly strong
tendency to grab onto such fleeting similarities and identify
them all as EQ to "me, ME, *ME*"... which causes no end of grief.
In the Buddhist literature this tendency is called "Ego".
If you find this off-topic [I don't, but you may], feel free to
redirect followups to "alt.buddha.short.fat.guy"[1].
-Rob
[1] http://www.ansaman.com/absfgfaq.html#quotes
...
"Maybe we are just how reality does introspection."
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: John Landahl
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <87acb78bg7.fsf@mobile.landahl.org>
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
[...]
> Nevertheless, sentient beings have an incredibly strong
> tendency to grab onto such fleeting similarities and identify
> them all as EQ to "me, ME, *ME*"... which causes no end of grief.
> In the Buddhist literature this tendency is called "Ego".
[...]
At the risk of going even farther afield, but for the sake of
comparison:
There are still harmless self-observers who believe in the existence
of "immediate certainties," such as "I think" or the "I will" that
was Schopenhauer's superstition: just as if knowledge had been given
an object here to seize, stark naked, as a "thing-in-itself," and no
falsification took place from either the side of the subject or the
side of the object. But I will say this a hundred times: "immediate
certainty," like "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself"
contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]. For
once and for all, we should free ourselves from the seduction of
words! Let the people believe that knowing means knowing to the
very end; the philosopher has to say: "When I dissect the process
expressed in the proposition 'I think,' I get a whole set of bold
claims that are difficult, perhaps impossible to establish, -- for
instance, that *I* am the one who is thinking, that there must be
something that is thinking in the first place, that thinking is an
activity and the effect of a being who is considered the cause, that
there is an 'I,' and finally, that it has already been determined
what is meant by thinking, -- that I *know* what thinking is.
Because if I had not already made up my mind what thinking is, how
could I tell whether what had just happened was not perhaps
'willing' or 'feeling'? Enough: this 'I think' presupposes that I
*compare* my present state with other states that I have seen in
myself, in order to determine what it is: and because of this
retrospective comparison with other types of 'knowing,' this present
state has absolutely no 'immediate certainty' for me." -- In place
of that "immediate certainty" which may, in this case, win the faith
of the people, the philosopher gets handed a whole assortment of
metaphysical questions, genuinely probing intellectual questions of
conscience, such as "Where do I get the concept of thinking from?
Why do I believe in causes and effects? What gives me the right to
speak about an I, and, for that matter, about an I as cause, and,
finally, about an I as the cause of thoughts?" Whoever dares to
answer these metaphysical questions right away with an appeal to a
sort of *intuitive* knowledge, like the person who says: "I think
and know that at least this is true, real, certain" -- he will find
the philosopher of today ready with a smile and two question marks:
"My dear sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand,
"it is improbable that you are not mistaken: but why insist on the
truth?" -- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 16
[While N. was somewhat familiar with Buddhism and there are some
interesting parallels like this, he found Buddhism (religion in
general) "nihilistic" for its pursuit of the "ascetic ideal". Not
that it really matters. :) ]
--
John Landahl <····@landahl.org>
http://landahl.org/john
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442D64C1.94C95F0C@freenet.de>
John Landahl schrieb:
> At the risk of going even farther afield, but for the sake of
> comparison:
...
Well.
In 1965 it takes about 25 years to double the world-knowledge.
In 1998 this changed to 2 years. Now it may take a shorter time.
It is a graph going to zero. Will this cross the zero-line? And what
will happen there?
In case the world will never touch the zero-line, there is the question
about what do the world know? (and is it worth to know?)
So, our knowledge keeps live easy for lazy-bones in the same way that it
destroys the underlaying structures. So, what are we doing?
Yes, always the next possible step, history shows, this cannot be
stoped. See the topic about the next step. Will say, what language is
necessary to do that? Can a computer-programm design its own language?
If yes, how? What sort of hardware will do the job?
hmmm... very interesting. I am sure, it happens inside of a garage
(after some beers) without any "high-level" thoughts about philosophy or
such. So lets build a garage first, hm?
stefan
David Steuber wrote:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
> Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>
> The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
> one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
Aren't there many programs which take their own existence into account?
Maybe certain Corewars programs and viruses do.
http://www.koth.org/
Tayssir
On 2006-03-30 09:57:42 -0500, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> said:
> Aren't there many programs which take their own existence into account?
But merely statically taking its own existence into account isn't
really what we mean by self awareness.
I'll extend the example I used with Pascal's quine. If we alter this
quine, the quine can't know it's been altered and will blithely execute
incorrectly. If we were to, by analogy, genetically modify a human
being so that his offspring were chimpanzees instead of humans
(assuming fo the moment that this were possible) she would recognize
that these children were not as they should be.
Awareness entails adaptive responsiveness to one's environment. Self
awareness additionally entails adaptive responsiveness to one's self as
another element in one's environment.
Various creatures are variously aware. For example, given two otherwise
identical targets that differed only in their reflection of near
ultraviolet radiation, you and I would not be able to distinguish
between them. A honey bee would. Bees are aware of the near ultraviolet
spectrum and we are not.
People are aware of their capacity to reproduce themselves. Quines are not.
In human beings awareness also entails qualia. We cannot say if this is
true of other creatures or not.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-03-30 09:57:42 -0500, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> <···········@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > Aren't there many programs which take their own existence into account?
> >
> > Maybe certain Corewars programs and viruses do.
> > http://www.koth.org/
>
> But merely statically taking its own existence into account isn't
> really what we mean by self awareness.
>
> I'll extend the example I used with Pascal's quine. If we alter this
> quine, the quine can't know it's been altered and will blithely execute
> incorrectly. If we were to, by analogy, genetically modify a human
> being so that his offspring were chimpanzees instead of humans
> (assuming fo the moment that this were possible) she would recognize
> that these children were not as they should be.
>
> Awareness entails adaptive responsiveness to one's environment. Self
> awareness additionally entails adaptive responsiveness to one's self as
> another element in one's environment.
>
> Various creatures are variously aware. For example, given two otherwise
> identical targets that differed only in their reflection of near
> ultraviolet radiation, you and I would not be able to distinguish
> between them. A honey bee would. Bees are aware of the near ultraviolet
> spectrum and we are not.
>
> People are aware of their capacity to reproduce themselves. Quines are not.
Yes, I'd probably agree that quines don't meet my intuitive definition
of "self aware" either.
But what do you think about the examples I mentioned, like possibly
Corewars programs and viruses? I haven't looked at them closely; maybe
all to date have operated under such restricted environments that they
don't dynamically observe where they currently fit into the world.
(Because too much intelligence is bad for survival in those
environments.)
But I can imagine a virus which keeps track of its instances; and tries
to alter its own code to slip under the radar, depending on what
enemies it finds.
Tayssir
On 2006-03-30 10:53:38 -0500, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> said:
> But what do you think about the examples I mentioned, like possibly
> Corewars programs and viruses? I haven't looked at them closely; maybe
> all to date have operated under such restricted environments that they
> don't dynamically observe where they currently fit into the world.
> (Because too much intelligence is bad for survival in those
> environments.)
>
> But I can imagine a virus which keeps track of its instances; and tries
> to alter its own code to slip under the radar, depending on what
> enemies it finds.
Yes, but think of the level of AI necessary for such a hypothetical
piece of code to be truly self aware. How, for example, could it know
that it is not running in a virtual machine? (a real world problem
since hoisting the entire OS into a virtual machine is apparently a
viable avenue of attack for malicious code)
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1936666,00.asp>
We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-03-30 10:53:38 -0500, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> <···········@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > But what do you think about the examples I mentioned, like possibly
> > Corewars programs and viruses? I haven't looked at them closely; maybe
> > all to date have operated under such restricted environments that they
> > don't dynamically observe where they currently fit into the world.
> > (Because too much intelligence is bad for survival in those
> > environments.)
> >
> > But I can imagine a virus which keeps track of its instances; and tries
> > to alter its own code to slip under the radar, depending on what
> > enemies it finds.
>
> Yes, but think of the level of AI necessary for such a hypothetical
> piece of code to be truly self aware. How, for example, could it know
> that it is not running in a virtual machine? (a real world problem
> since hoisting the entire OS into a virtual machine is apparently a
> viable avenue of attack for malicious code)
> <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1936666,00.asp>
>
> We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
Hmm, it seems to me that you have a different notion of self-awareness
than I do. Yours seems to require stronger problem-solving abilities
than mine.
Most humans probably be hard-pressed to determine whether their
computer's OS right now is running under some unexpected VM... and we
have advantages like running on our own "specialized machines," being
able to reliably access outside information, etc.
Also, your notion might exclude many animals I consider self aware.
I've observed animals who misrepresent themselves to others, in order
to trick them into letting them have something. (For example, a rat
feigning disinterest while pretending to look in another direction, so
another rat won't be too aware she's sneaking up to take some food.)
But they probably couldn't figure out whether they're brains in vats,
or add large numbers.
And humans even have problems with propaganda systems, which are much
weaker than brains-in-vats systems. Some critics like Einstein claimed
that under media and education control, it is "extremely difficult, and
indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to
come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his
political rights."
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
Tayssir
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
How? I would have taken this remark as a joke, but Tayssir below and
Pascal B. elsewhere seem to take it at face value.
>
> Hmm, it seems to me that you have a different notion of self-awareness
> than I do. Yours seems to require stronger problem-solving abilities
> than mine.
>
> Most humans probably be hard-pressed to determine whether their
> computer's OS right now is running under some unexpected VM... and we
> have advantages like running on our own "specialized machines," being
> able to reliably access outside information, etc.
>
> Also, your notion might exclude many animals I consider self aware.
> I've observed animals who misrepresent themselves to others, in order
> to trick them into letting them have something. (For example, a rat
> feigning disinterest while pretending to look in another direction, so
> another rat won't be too aware she's sneaking up to take some food.)
> But they probably couldn't figure out whether they're brains in vats,
> or add large numbers.
I agree that there is not much point in believing one is a brain in a
vat and letting that influence ones decisions, but in what sense can
one _know_ that this is not the case?
> And humans even have problems with propaganda systems, which are much
> weaker than brains-in-vats systems. Some critics like Einstein claimed
> that under media and education control, it is "extremely difficult, and
> indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to
> come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his
> political rights."
> http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
>
> Tayssir
-Mikko Heikel�
Mikko Heikelä wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
> > Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> >> We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
>
> How? I would have taken this remark as a joke, but Tayssir below and
> Pascal B. elsewhere seem to take it at face value.
Probably because Tayssir was being absurd and just kinda riffing. ;) I
mean, I thought that sentence was intended as a joke, but the preceding
one seemed kinda serious, and I wanted to treat it as a serious example
in order to bring out the feeling that my notion of self-awareness
seems to not be as strong as various philosophers'.
Tayssir
On Fri, 30 Mar 2006, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Mikko Heikel� wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>>
>>> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>>> We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
>>
>> How? I would have taken this remark as a joke, but Tayssir below and
>> Pascal B. elsewhere seem to take it at face value.
>
> Probably because Tayssir was being absurd and just kinda riffing. ;) I
> mean, I thought that sentence was intended as a joke, but the preceding
> one seemed kinda serious, and I wanted to treat it as a serious example
> in order to bring out the feeling that my notion of self-awareness
> seems to not be as strong as various philosophers'.
Ok, I'm relieved. I thought I had perhaps missed the existence of a
rigorous refutation of solipsism and brain-in-a-vat scenarios.
Beside the notion of self-awareness, I think carefully inspecting the
notion of knowing is also needed in this kind of philosophical
discussion. E.g. if one formulates a notion of knowledge for which it
is true that we know we are not brains in vats, it might turn out that
also the animals that we consider conscious would know the same thing
in the same sense.
-Mikko
On 2006-03-30 19:22:48 -0500, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> said:
> Probably because Tayssir was being absurd and just kinda riffing. ;) I
> mean, I thought that sentence was intended as a joke, but the preceding
> one seemed kinda serious, and I wanted to treat it as a serious example
> in order to bring out the feeling that my notion of self-awareness
> seems to not be as strong as various philosophers'.
Right. Just to fully flog this dead horse, the only point I was making
is that human beings have multiple means of reality and consistency
checking, whereas the original quine had essentially none.
If we really were in a flawless matrix there would be no way to detect
it, but think of the multiplication of entities required by such a
system with no gain at all in explanatory power - every one of our
sensory inputs would have to be undetectably bypassed or subverted by
an almost unimaginably complex computer system, all with no discerable
difference from a non-simulated world. Occams razor dictates that the
far more parsimonious explanation - that consensus reality is not an
elaborate computer simulation - is much more likely true.
BTW, I think Occam's razor also serves as a refutation of Dennet's
"alternative neurosurgery" response to qualia.
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <87slowhndh.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Well I guess I don't have to live in constant fear of someone tripping
over the power chord ;-)
I think this thread has established at least one fact that we might
agree on. Philosophy is born out of boredom. Not that I would count
myself as a philosopher mind you. Just bored.
I wonder if the first self aware program will do us all out of a job?
Or perhaps it won't really be anywhere near as smart as people. Or
perhaps its first task will be to write a program to take the load off
of its hands, so to speak.
Baltar was right. "For a self aware cybernetic organism, you are
chronicly obtuse."
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F)
It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> Yes, but think of the level of AI necessary for such a hypothetical
> piece of code to be truly self aware. How, for example, could it know
> that it is not running in a virtual machine? (a real world problem
> since hoisting the entire OS into a virtual machine is apparently a
> viable avenue of attack for malicious code)
> <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1936666,00.asp>
We need to include hardware timing functions to detect this...
> We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
It's not obvious.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You can tell the Lisp programmers. They have pockets full of punch
cards with close parentheses on them." --> http://tinyurl.com/8ubpf
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> > We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> It's not obvious.
Bill Gosper in HAKMEM notes that we can find out how the Matrix
represents numbers:
ITEM 154 (Gosper):
The myth that any given programming language is machine independent is
easily exploded by computing the sum of powers of 2.
If the result loops with period = 1 with sign +, you are on a
sign-magnitude machine.
If the result loops with period = 1 at -1, you are on a twos-complement
machine.
If the result loops with period > 1, including the beginning, you are
on a ones-complement machine.
If the result loops with period > 1, not including the beginning, your
machine isn't binary -- the pattern should tell you the base.
If you run out of memory, you are on a string or Bignum system.
If arithmetic overflow is a fatal error, some fascist pig with a
read-only mind is trying to enforce machine independence. But the very
ability to trap overflow is machine dependent.
By this strategy, consider the universe, or, more precisely, algebra:
let X = the sum of many powers of two = ...111111
now add X to itself; X + X = ...111110
thus, 2X = X - 1 so X = -1
therefore algebra is run on a machine (the universe) which is
twos-complement.
Joe Marshall wrote:
>>Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>>
>>>We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
>
>
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>>It's not obvious.
>
>
> Bill Gosper in HAKMEM notes that we can find out how the Matrix
> represents numbers:
>
> ITEM 154 (Gosper):
> The myth that any given programming language is machine independent is
> easily exploded by computing the sum of powers of 2.
> If the result loops with period = 1 with sign +, you are on a
> sign-magnitude machine.
> If the result loops with period = 1 at -1, you are on a twos-complement
> machine.
> If the result loops with period > 1, including the beginning, you are
> on a ones-complement machine.
> If the result loops with period > 1, not including the beginning, your
> machine isn't binary -- the pattern should tell you the base.
> If you run out of memory, you are on a string or Bignum system.
> If arithmetic overflow is a fatal error, some fascist pig with a
> read-only mind is trying to enforce machine independence. But the very
> ability to trap overflow is machine dependent.
> By this strategy, consider the universe, or, more precisely, algebra:
> let X = the sum of many powers of two = ...111111
> now add X to itself; X + X = ...111110
> thus, 2X = X - 1 so X = -1
> therefore algebra is run on a machine (the universe) which is
> twos-complement.
>
Amusing, but your math doesn't check.
X = 11111
X + X = 2X = 111110
So where X = 2^Y, 2X = X - 1 + 2^(Y + 1).
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
"Joe Marshall" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>> > We humans on the other hand can know if we are inside the Matrix ;^).
>
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> It's not obvious.
>
> Bill Gosper in HAKMEM notes that we can find out how the Matrix
> represents numbers:
>
> ITEM 154 (Gosper):
> The myth that any given programming language is machine independent is
> easily exploded by computing the sum of powers of 2.
> If the result loops with period = 1 with sign +, you are on a
> sign-magnitude machine.
> If the result loops with period = 1 at -1, you are on a twos-complement
> machine.
> If the result loops with period > 1, including the beginning, you are
> on a ones-complement machine.
> If the result loops with period > 1, not including the beginning, your
> machine isn't binary -- the pattern should tell you the base.
> If you run out of memory, you are on a string or Bignum system.
> If arithmetic overflow is a fatal error, some fascist pig with a
> read-only mind is trying to enforce machine independence. But the very
> ability to trap overflow is machine dependent.
> By this strategy, consider the universe, or, more precisely, algebra:
> let X = the sum of many powers of two = ...111111
> now add X to itself; X + X = ...111110
> thus, 2X = X - 1 so X = -1
> therefore algebra is run on a machine (the universe) which is
> twos-complement.
I agree that programs can detect if they're inside a virtual machine
(given they've got access to a true external real time clock).
But how can beings inside a Matrix detect they're inside a Matrix, from within?
What "physical" process would this sum of powers of 2 match to?
I only see three ways to detect a Matrix from within.
- bugs in the Matrix, like the cat loop,
- communication with the external world (the program having access to
the real time clock)
- somebody from within having access to the program of the Matrix.
(Actually both three are described in The Matrix).
Do we see bugs in the universe?
Perhaps. There is stuff that physicists don't consider.
Do we see repeatable bugs in the universe?
I don't think so. Or at least, the physicists just consider they
just don't have a theory YET for them. They're not bugs, they're features!
Can we communicate with the external world?
Perhaps, but how do we distinguish it from hallucinations? We seem
to be needing an interface with our machines, rather than with our
brains to consider it "real".
By the way, here is a intriguing observation: when you simulate a
world, you need to implement some collision detection. An object
that doesn't move doesn't need a lot of processor cycles to check
whether it'll collide. An object that moves faster will scan a
bigger volume of space, so you'll need more processor cycles to check
whether it'll collide with another object whose scan volume
intersects. Very fast objects could DOS the processor. Now, observe
how the relativity theory compresses the space in the direction of
movement, while at the same time expanding the time of the voyager:
the number processor cycles needed to do collision checking remains
constant whatever the speed, with the trick of implementing relative
time to each object.
Can somebody have access to the programming of our universe?
Do miracles occur? Does magic really work?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
I need a new toy.
Tail of black dog keeps good time.
Pounce! Good dog! Good dog!
You are forgetting that if one lived in a simulated word that world
could be run as slowly as desired. Even one second of simulated time
took a thousand years of real time to compute it would still feel the
same to those in the simulated world. Thus there would be no need for
relativity to help with collision detection. Since you can run the
world as slowly as you like one would naturally simulate it as some
kind of cellular automata at the lowest level, and thus one would not
expect to find "bugs" either.
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2sloyyx94.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
········@uci.edu writes:
> You are forgetting that if one lived in a simulated word that world
> could be run as slowly as desired. Even one second of simulated time
> took a thousand years of real time to compute it would still feel the
> same to those in the simulated world.
But it'd be a lot more boring for those on the outside than if the
simulation ran faster.
> Thus there would be no need for relativity to help with collision
> detection. Since you can run the world as slowly as you like one
> would naturally simulate it as some kind of cellular automata at the
> lowest level, and thus one would not expect to find "bugs" either.
Why would you expect that the folks running the simulation have
infinite patience? If I could make *my* simulated world run orders of
magnitude via a hack such as relativistic physics, I'd probably go for
it. And why do you expect that a simulation written using one
particular technology (cellular automata) would be bug free?
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
Well you have no idea what kind of beings are running the simulation.
I think it is far more likely they would be patient rather than
impatient since they went through the trouble of simulatting an entire
universe. Really saying that they might be "impatient" is simply
anthropomorphizing, and we have no evidence either way.
As to why a cellular automata would be bug free: each cell is governed
by only a few simple, and local laws, which can be tested extensively
to prove that they are bug free. Once you create a field of these
cells any behavior that arises naturally has an explanation in terms of
those rules, and thus will seems physically consistant, and thus not a
bug. For example say physicists arrive at such a rule set for our
universe. If some unexpected behavior, from our point of view,
happens, but is explainable in terms of the underlying rule-set then it
is not a bug, but expected physical behavior (ex: quantum spooky action
at a distance). A bug would only be noticable as such when its
behavior was inconsistant over time, especailly if such inconstancy was
not statistically governed. However since the underlying rule set is
bug free one wouldn't expect to see any such behavior. In constanst a
system that attempted to "fake" a natural seeming world with a vast
collection of rules regarding object motion, breaking objects, ect one
might validly expect to have bugs.
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2odzmyvhq.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
········@uci.edu writes:
> Well you have no idea what kind of beings are running the simulation.
Nor, I suspect, do you.
> I think it is far more likely they would be patient rather than
> impatient since they went through the trouble of simulatting an
> entire universe.
Well, I'd guess the other way--maybe this is the simplest possible
universe that the Simulators think will yield interesting results and
they're sitting around hoping it will finish soon so they can go get
lunch.
> Really saying that they might be "impatient" is simply
> anthropomorphizing, and we have no evidence either way.
I think that ship sailed once we started presupposing the existence of
programmers writing simulations.
> As to why a cellular automata would be bug free: each cell is governed
> by only a few simple, and local laws, which can be tested extensively
> to prove that they are bug free. Once you create a field of these
> cells any behavior that arises naturally has an explanation in terms of
> those rules, and thus will seems physically consistant, and thus not a
> bug. For example say physicists arrive at such a rule set for our
> universe. If some unexpected behavior, from our point of view,
> happens, but is explainable in terms of the underlying rule-set then it
> is not a bug, but expected physical behavior (ex: quantum spooky action
> at a distance). A bug would only be noticable as such when its
> behavior was inconsistant over time, especailly if such inconstancy was
> not statistically governed. However since the underlying rule set is
> bug free one wouldn't expect to see any such behavior. In constanst a
> system that attempted to "fake" a natural seeming world with a vast
> collection of rules regarding object motion, breaking objects, ect one
> might validly expect to have bugs.
Not really--it'd still be a program following a deterministic set of
rules. If you're assuming that physicists in this simulated world
could get to the root of a simple set of basic rules of a cellular
atomata, why wouldn't they be able to get to the root of the more
complex set of rules governing a more ad hoc simulation?
-Peter
P.S. You should really quote the relevant parts of the posts you reply
to to provide some context.
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
> Not really--it'd still be a program following a deterministic set of
> rules. If you're assuming that physicists in this simulated world
> could get to the root of a simple set of basic rules of a cellular
> atomata, why wouldn't they be able to get to the root of the more
> complex set of rules governing a more ad hoc simulation?
Oh they might very well come up with a guess as to some fundamental
rules in such a situation. However because in your "ad-hoc" simulation
there are no real fundamental rules in the code there may be "bugs" in
the sense that the complex rules occasionally contradict each other,
and thus act unexpectedly in terms of any fundamental rules that could
be supposed. However in a celluar automation there really are
fundamental rules, which all large scale behavior arises from.
Scientists in this world who figured out the fundamental rules would
never see any bugs, since the large scale rules would universally agree
with the fundamental rule set.
Examples from real science:
Bugs: The contradiction between quantum physics and general relativity
could be seen as a bug in the program. i.e. we haven't yet found an
underlying rule set that explains both of them. When applied to small
and massive or small and fast moving objects they can contradict each
other.
Automata: Some explanations for a fundamental rule set involve a
lattice of space time. Information only exists at intersections in the
lattice and can only affect intersections which touch it upwards in
time. The distance between intersections explains quantum time units
and quantum space units. One such explantion along these lines is
quantum gravity, and they attempt to reconcile quantum physics and
relativity in a way that makes them "bug free".
> P.S. You should really quote the relevant parts of the posts you reply
> to to provide some context
bah!
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442E1F5C.A4CBBFFD@freenet.de>
Peter Seibel schrieb:
> ... And why do you expect that a simulation written using one
> particular technology (cellular automata) would be bug free?
It begins with the simplest step and does self expanding in all
recognized ways. (Can you think of other ways?)
stefan
On 2006-04-01, Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> wrote:
> And why do you expect that a simulation written using one particular
> technology (cellular automata) would be bug free?
Or unpatched?
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/89q3/fixit.583.html
> "Hey Mike?"
>
> "Yeah, Gabe?"
>
> "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."
>
> "I thought you fixed that last century!"
>
> "No, no, not that. Someone's found a loophole in the physics
> program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."
>
> "Blessit! Lemme check..." <tappity clickity tappity> "Hey, I thought
> I fixed that! All right, let me find my terminal." <tappity clickity
> tap... save... compile> "There, that ought to patch it."
-- L
Larry Clapp wrote:
> On 2006-04-01, Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> wrote:
>
>>And why do you expect that a simulation written using one particular
>>technology (cellular automata) would be bug free?
>
>
> Or unpatched?
>
> http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/89q3/fixit.583.html
>
>
>>"Hey Mike?"
>>
>>"Yeah, Gabe?"
>>
>>"We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."
>>
>>"I thought you fixed that last century!"
>>
>>"No, no, not that. Someone's found a loophole in the physics
>>program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."
>>
>>"Blessit! Lemme check..." <tappity clickity tappity> "Hey, I thought
>>I fixed that! All right, let me find my terminal." <tappity clickity
>>tap... save... compile> "There, that ought to patch it."
>
>
> -- L
>
That wasn't a bug, it was a feature!
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
········@uci.edu writes:
> You are forgetting that if one lived in a simulated word that world
> could be run as slowly as desired. Even one second of simulated time
> took a thousand years of real time to compute it would still feel the
> same to those in the simulated world. Thus there would be no need for
> relativity to help with collision detection. Since you can run the
> world as slowly as you like one would naturally simulate it as some
> kind of cellular automata at the lowest level, and thus one would not
> expect to find "bugs" either.
Depends on the objectives of the Master Programmer :-)
Perhaps God is not too much interested in the fast moving particles,
and is more interested in the slow moving and living bodies?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Small brave carnivores
Kill pine cones and mosquitoes
Fear vacuum cleaner
Your theory that god only cares about the slow moving bodies is flawed
in two ways. One is that god is supposedly omnipotent, and can thus
care about objects moving at all speeds equally, as would be fair.
Your conclusion would imply that god doesn't have enough attention to
spare to the fast moving observers.
Secondly you ignore the relativity part of special relativity, i.e. to
observers who are moving at high velocity we are the ones who seem slow
and lorenz contracted not them. They observe objects in their frame of
reference to be acting normally, neither slowed or contracted, assuming
they are moving at some high constant speed. It is only in the process
of acceleration and deceleratioon that this symmetry is broken. In
fact such a situation is harder to simulate than newtonian physics, as
you have to run one simulated universe for each frame of reference (if
you are trying to simulate the macroscopic laws that is).
<········@uci.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| Secondly you ignore the relativity part of special relativity, i.e. to
| observers who are moving at high velocity we are the ones who seem slow
| and lorenz contracted not them. They observe objects in their frame of
| reference to be acting normally, neither slowed or contracted, assuming
| they are moving at some high constant speed.
+---------------
You have this backwards. Observers who accelerate to near-luminal
velocities [and then remain at constant velocity thereafter], while
continuing to think that their on-boards clocks run at the same speed,
will see the external universe compressed front & rear into a disk
around the middle.
+---------------
| ...acceleration and deceleratioon that this symmetry is broken.
+---------------
That's correct, as far as it goes, but since none of *us* will
ever travel at near-luminal velocities without being accelerated
first, it's a red-herring.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442E2190.E30A157@freenet.de>
Pascal Bourguignon schrieb:
> Depends on the objectives of the Master Programmer :-)
> Perhaps God is not too much interested in the fast moving particles,
> and is more interested in the slow moving and living bodies?
Nono, there is more than one matrix. Go to an underwater zoo and watch
yourself. :)
stefan
ps:
(+ 1 1) is bugfree, in any case.
········@uci.edu wrote:
> You are forgetting that if one lived in a simulated word that world
> could be run as slowly as desired. Even one second of simulated time
> took a thousand years of real time to compute it would still feel the
> same to those in the simulated world. Thus there would be no need for
> relativity to help with collision detection. Since you can run the
> world as slowly as you like one would naturally simulate it as some
> kind of cellular automata at the lowest level, and thus one would not
> expect to find "bugs" either.
>
Problem: In a "Matrix" the human brain still works in Real Time, so the
simulation must keep pace with the minds imprisoned in it.
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
> Problem: In a "Matrix" the human brain still works in Real Time, so the
> simulation must keep pace with the minds imprisoned in it.
I think we have left the movies behind here and are considering
completely simulated beings. As someone mentioned much earlier if you
had access to an external clock you could easily show that you were in
a simulation. Having your brain run in "real-time" can give you the
same information, simply travel very close to the speed of light.
Unless they drag a large mass under your real body to slow down the
passage of time around it your thoughts will become "out of synch" with
the simulated environement, in which time within your own frame of
reference will apprear to be too fast or too slow (this can never
happen in "real" physics as time in your frame of reference will always
appear to progress at the same speed).
Pascal Bourguignon <······@informatimago.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Now, observe how the relativity theory compresses the space
| in the direction of movement, while at the same time expanding
| the time of the voyager: ...
+---------------
Sorry, you have this backwards. Under Special Relativity voyagers
travelling close to C experiences subjectively *slower* time -- and
the only thing that prevents them from thinking they're travelling
faster than light is the apparent contraction of space in the direction
of movement.
+---------------
| ...the number processor cycles needed to do collision checking remains
| constant whatever the speed, with the trick of implementing relative
| time to each object.
+---------------
Again, backwards. The subjective time available to avoid a collision
with an object becomes *less* [and thus the number processor cycles
needed to do collision checking gets *larger*] because of both the
subjectively slowing of time and the contraction of space [itDoM].
This is a real navigational hazard to near-luminal flight.
[That, and the increase in hard radiation coming at you from your
direction of travel due to visible light in front of you getting
Doppler-shifted up into the gamma... :-( ]
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442EC1E8.21797E10@freenet.de>
Stefan Ram schrieb:
> There is at least one other hint: They will observe that in
> their frame of reference light still has the speed of
> 299792458 m/s. Therefore, they do not have a reason to believe
> that they are travelling faster than this. (In his own frame
> of reference, an observer has the speed of 0 m/s, which is
> less than 299792458 m/s.)
And when the "home"-computer runs with "c" we never can find something
faster than this, right?
stefan
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442E1E04.EB0B90C6@freenet.de>
Pascal Bourguignon schrieb:
Hallo Pascal Bourguignon
> I only see three ways to detect a Matrix from within.
> - bugs in the Matrix, like the cat loop,
> - communication with the external world (the program having access to
> the real time clock)
> - somebody from within having access to the program of the Matrix.
Thinking a bit around, I see one more reason to detect this matrix. The
number of inhabitants grows up, continuously. Thus the simulations speed
should grow also, or the need for more CPU-power. This will consume more
energy. Where does this come from?
Hmm, the number of animals goes down. Aha. Oh dear ... lets crash it :)
Else: can you see the border of the simulations space? Like in 13th
floor we can't see that, so we must live inside. What goals can this
have? Study war case scenarios, test out psychologic models, for foreign
amusement? When there is one world, why not more?
stefan
lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon schrieb:
>
> Hallo Pascal Bourguignon
>
>> I only see three ways to detect a Matrix from within.
>> - bugs in the Matrix, like the cat loop,
>> - communication with the external world (the program having access to
>> the real time clock)
>> - somebody from within having access to the program of the Matrix.
>
>
> Thinking a bit around, I see one more reason to detect this matrix. The
> number of inhabitants grows up, continuously. Thus the simulations speed
> should grow also, or the need for more CPU-power. This will consume more
> energy. Where does this come from?
> Hmm, the number of animals goes down. Aha. Oh dear ... lets crash it :)
Indeed, if the simulation is not done at a lower level than subatomic
particules. We've never observed that the total number of living
being should be constant, but on the contrary, we've observed that the
total energy in the universe is constant.
> Else: can you see the border of the simulations space? Like in 13th
> floor we can't see that, so we must live inside. What goals can this
> have? Study war case scenarios, test out psychologic models, for foreign
> amusement? When there is one world, why not more?
You need to play Asteroids more.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/10/5
http://www.evolutionpages.com/dodecahedral_universe.htm
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in it's wake.
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <44304D0B.C6543230@freenet.de>
Pascal Bourguignon schrieb:
> lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> writes:
Hallo
...
> Indeed, if the simulation is not done at a lower level than subatomic
> particules. We've never observed that the total number of living
> being should be constant, but on the contrary, we've observed that the
> total energy in the universe is constant.
Ja-ja. The discuss about the oo or not oo universe goes on. And we only
had a mat/phys. construct, showing us that energy needs to be constant
(because in that case some kind of things fit perfect together, but
there is nothing perfect, except some models).
How far can we look? So, in a galaxy far, far away there *is* a big
generator, right? (Please do not make my universe as small as on earth
someone can think).
It should be possible to say how much creatures/individuals live inside
this simulation. When energy is limit and the number of inhabitants
rise, there is a point of (nearly) stand still. Poor, hm?
> You need to play Asteroids more.
Ahhh... I play x2 and want to have that script-editor in/for lisp :)
stefan
On 2006-03-30 10:04:56 -0500, ···············@yahoo.com said:
> (do ((y 1971 (1+ y)))
> ((= y 1992))
> (format t "~&I should have just had the guts to ask her out that day
> in ~D." y))
>
> Now someone write it with loop.
?
(loop for y from 1971 below 1992 do (format t "~&I should have just had
the guts to ask her out that day
in ~D." y))
(assuming you meant for the line break to be there and it isn't just an
artifact of your newsreader)
otherwise:
(loop for y from 1971 below 1992
do (format t
"~&I should have just had the guts to ask her out that day in ~D." y))
;; there's no line break in this ^^^ string
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-03-30 10:04:56 -0500, ···············@yahoo.com said:
>
>> (do ((y 1971 (1+ y)))
>> ((= y 1992))
>> (format t "~&I should have just had the guts to ask her out that day
>> in ~D." y))
>> Now someone write it with loop.
>
>
>
> ?
> (loop for y from 1971 below 1992 do (format t "~&I should have just
> had the guts to ask her out that day
> in ~D." y))
>
> (assuming you meant for the line break to be there and it isn't just
> an artifact of your newsreader)
>
> otherwise:
>
> (loop for y from 1971 below 1992
> do (format t
> "~&I should have just had the guts to ask her out that day in ~D." y))
> ;; there's no line break in this ^^^ string
(loop for y from 1971 below 1992
do (format t "~&I should have just had the guts ~
to ask her out that day in ~D." y))
;; and neither in that string ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"What is this talk of "release"? Klingons do not make software
"releases". Our software "escapes" leaving a bloody trail of
designers and quality assurance people in its wake."
On 2006-03-30 11:02:08 -0500, Pascal Bourguignon
<······@informatimago.com> said:
> (loop for y from 1971 below 1992
> do (format t "~&I should have just had the guts ~
> to ask her out that day in ~D." y))
> ;; and neither in that string ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, of course. Thanks for reminding me.
Pascal Bourguignon <······@informatimago.com> writes:
>> ;; there's no line break in this ^^^ string
> (loop for y from 1971 below 1992
> do (format t "~&I should have just had the guts ~
> to ask her out that day in ~D." y))
> ;; and neither in that string ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a newline in the string literal, but FORMAT will ignore it.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s675yprnpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:51:31 +0200, David Steuber
<·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate. Or perhaps some descendant of
> Lisp that adds to the features Common Lisp already has.
>
> The only real problem I see with this is that, so far as I know, no
> one knows how self awareness works. Perhaps we should ask a Cylon.
>
> Oh, Hi! I'm just trying to get going at work and I don't get to write
> Lisp here :-(. I've not been doing any programming in my free time
> either because life is still a bit hectic. However, I do have a high
> definition version of Xeno's Xoom on the way. Perhaps it will be
> finished before Christmas. It will be just like the current one
> except that the resolution will be 1280x720 @ 30fps. I'm also likely
> to do a palette animated version.
>
> Bored to death at work,
>
I view self awareness as nothing more that a form autoepistemic logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoepistemic_logic
Stictly autoepistemic just means self refencing.
In particularly it realates to your knowlege of the outside world.
It arouse from a obsevation of what happened when a
traditional inference engine on predicate logic was asked questions
in a knowlege domain of which it knew nothing.
The result is of cource that it produses utter rubbish as it still
tries to use the rules it knows. On way to go has been to produce
a ruleset containg what we call common knowlege.
The other is autoepistemic logic which tries to make the
compute know what it knows. (and what it dosn't)
Not that I think humas think in the form of rules and deductions but I
think
it gives a general idea of what we would regard as "self aware".
And it is a bit more rigerous.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On 2006-03-30 06:53:03 -0500, "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> said:
> I view self awareness as nothing more that a form autoepistemic logic.
This fails to account for qualia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia>
Human self consciousness is also filled with qualia, which is why
qualia are often taken as a refutation of the pure physicalist argument
you are making.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <dQUWf.15$iu3.14@fe12.lga>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-03-30 06:53:03 -0500, "John Thingstad"
> <··············@chello.no> said:
>
>> I view self awareness as nothing more that a form autoepistemic logic.
>
>
> This fails to account for qualia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia>
>
> Human self consciousness is also filled with qualia, which is why qualia
> are often taken as a refutation of the pure physicalist argument you are
> making.
>
First person to mention Searle's Chinese Room loses.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> First person to mention Searle's Chinese Room loses.
That would be Searle. And I agree. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <yzllkurzs3s.fsf@OSX663.local>
Eric Lavigne wrote:
> http://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3
I always knew that God used Lisp for creating the world :-)
--
Frank Buss, ··@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Frank Buss wrote:
> Eric Lavigne wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3
>
>
> I always knew that God used Lisp for creating the world :-)
>
Eylohim midabrim "Lisp"? Lo.
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
From: lin8080
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <442C8C76.BF0D37CF@freenet.de>
"Christopher C. Stacy" schrieb:
> GGCTGTGCGC TCTGGGGCAC CTCATGCAGA CGGGAGTAGG GAGGCTGTTT 50
...
I always thought I have an interpreter, but ...
*working*
(pscht, it's a copy)
On 29 Mar 2006 11:51:31 -0500, <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> Lisp seems like the obvious candidate.
Perhaps first, the baby steps need to be conquered. The game Corewars
is still around, http://home.pipeline.com/~corewar/, after some 20
years. A few years ago, various simple GA evolver schemes were
introduced, however the human generated redcode continues to prove
superior.
There once was a Common Lisp version of Corewars, but some links to
that code have died. Some of the approaches to redcode evolvers are
similar to your fractal zoomer, perhaps you would be interested in
http://www.infionline.net/~wtnewton/corewar/evol/index.html
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: What language will be used to write the first self aware program?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3ek04hmm9.fsf@NOSPAMgmail.com>
That's like asking, 'will algebraic or geometrical methods first be used
to prove that 1 + 1 = 3?'; self-aware programs are not possible because
programs do not have selves of which they can properly be said to be
aware.
To quote Dijkstra, `the question of whether a computer can think is no
more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.'
I.e., what a computer does is not think, but rather reason. A program
isn't really aware of anything, much less its (non-existent) self.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
In general, it is best to assume that the network is filled with
malevolent entities that will send in packets designed to have the
worst possible effect. --Jon Postel, RFC 1122
> That's like asking, 'will algebraic or geometrical methods first be used
>to prove that 1 + 1 = 3?';
I choose "+" to mean vector addition, which is an operation that
satisfies the 8 postulates of vector spaces. For some particular
operation that satisfies those postulates, it is certainly possible for
"1 + 1 = 3". The details are uninteresting...
In the end, it comes down to a question of definition. If you assume
the definition of "+" that you learned in elementary school, then you
might quickly assume that anyone who thinks "1 + 1 = 3" must be a
moron.
>self-aware programs are not possible because
>programs do not have selves of which they can properly be said to be
>aware.
Another statement that depends on the definition of an ambiguous
word/symbol...
In the context of this statement, it would seem that "self" refers to
the program in question, but I've heard that philosophers like to make
this word more complicated, just as mathematicians like to make "+"
complicated. <sigh>
> In the context of this statement, it would seem that "self" refers to
> the program in question, but I've heard that philosophers like to make
> this word more complicated, just as mathematicians like to make "+"
> complicated. <sigh>
In defense of philosophy the idea of self is a complicated thing.
However I think that the majority of modern philosophers would be in
favor of the idea that a machine or program could be intelligent and
self aware, not against it. For example see Hofstander and Dennett who
are two philosophers who tend to be accessable to the general public.
> In the context of this statement, it would seem that "self" refers to
> the program in question, but I've heard that philosophers like to make
> this word more complicated, just as mathematicians like to make "+"
> complicated. <sigh>
In defense of philosophy the idea of self is a complicated thing.
However I think that the majority of modern philosophers would be in
favor of the idea that a machine or program could be intelligent and
self aware, not against it. For example see Hofstander and Dennett who
are two philosophers who tend to be accessable to the general public.
> In the context of this statement, it would seem that "self" refers to
> the program in question, but I've heard that philosophers like to make
> this word more complicated, just as mathematicians like to make "+"
> complicated. <sigh>
In defense of philosophy the idea of self is a complicated thing.
However I think that the majority of modern philosophers would be in
favor of the idea that a machine or program could be intelligent and
self aware, not against it. For example see Hofstander and Dennett who
are two philosophers who tend to be accessable to the general public.