1. 2004-8-10 Responses to Comments of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky.
1.1 2004-8-10 Is the universe Mathematics?
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
I don't claim to know how or why it is so, but it seems obvious enough that our physical universe is a manifestation of that which we name "mathematics" - maybe even in the sense of our physical universe being a model which satisfies an axiomatic system, but I'm still studying mathematical logic so it's too early for me to speculate coherently about that.DC Response: Mathematics is a human construct that has some usefulness to the physical world because man designed it that way. The elegance of Mathematics is solely (in my humble judgment) a property of the way in which Math was invented. The universe is not Math but Math is just a human contrivance to help look at the universe by man. I make programs all the time that are "axiomatically" elegant and consistent and they also have some useful purpose in the real world but do my programs "manifest" the "universe"? I had a partner in a company I owned in the 1980's and my partner spent his adult life as a Mathematical professor and researcher at a University, in a branch of Mathematics called Lattice Theory. Over 500 full time researchers publish documents in this discipline around the world. He told me that there were currently no known applications or physical use for Lattice theory in the world! How does this correlate with reality and pure mathematics? Do you have arguments to support this assumption or should we believe things just because they seem "obvious"?
1.2 2004-8-10 Does name dropping of ancient people contribute to an argument?
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
Geddes credits the speculation that all is math and all math exists to Tegmark, Geddes didn't make it up himself. Nor did Tegmark devise it; if I recall correctly "all is math" goes back to Pythagoras, and I don't know who first speculated that everything exists.DC Response: Who cares who first postulated some particular idea? If you say you believe XYZ then you should have to support your belief. I am not impressed by the fact that someone who was quoted lived long ago. In fact, because they didn't have the benefit of all the knowledge that has been gained since, their opinions are probably worth less. Linus Pauling received 2 Nobel Prizes but that did not stop him from being totally wrong about massive vitamin C doses. I have no time to read and remember what everyone has ever written, and so I just put forward my arguments (some of which are mine and some might come from others) and I defend them regardless of their origin. Many times I think up new (to me) ideas and I am subsequently told someone thought of them before me. I feel much smarter having walked in such great shoes!
2. 2004-8-10 Responses to World View of Marc Geddes.
2.1 2004-8-10 Reality is a manifestation of pure mathematics?
Marc Geddes wrote: All of reality is a manifestation of pure mathematics.
DC response: I had a partner in a company I owned in the 1980's and my partner spent his adult life as a Mathematical professor and researcher at University, in a branch of Mathematics called Lattice Theory. Over 500 full time researchers publish documents in this discipline around the world. He told me that there were currently no known applications or physical use for Lattice theory in the world! How does this correlate with reality and pure mathematics? Is this just a definition of yours or do you have arguments to support this statement?
2.2 2004-8-10 Infinite alternative universes?
Marc Geddes wrote: There exist universes in which Adolph Hitler won World War II, and so on.
DC response: What evidence or proof do you have to support such an outlandish theory? I have seen this theory in Science Fiction but I know that it is not widely held by practicing physicists. Even the current string theory has no direct evidence of being true.
2.3 2004-8-10 Direct Mapping between Mathematics and computational concepts?
Marc Geddes wrote: There is a mapping between all mathematical and computational concepts
DC response: I have a double major in Mathematics and Computer Science from a University and I have seen nothing but trivial Mathematics in my Computer Science career in 28 years of practice. I have made compilers, database servers, network control code, word processors and tons of application code. No Mathematics! I have a major in Mathematics and I have never used any of it in all my programming. My Mathematics professor partner for 9 years, thought he knew something about programming because of his Math but he was sadly mistaken. The most important Computer Science skill is identifying systems and patterns in complex real world data, and this is but a small attribute of a Mathematician.
2.4 2004-8-10 Universal Computation?
Marc Geddes wrote: Universal Computation - No supernatural forces
DC response: Although I agree that AI is possible to become conscious, I don't see where Mathematics and reality come together. Mathematics is a human construct that exists in it's own world and sometimes it is designed to help us with some real world problems. Mathematics is very pure and absolute in it's results whereas reality is very fussy and subject to chance. No proof could ever be given to prove that any arbitrary reality can be programmed on a general purpose computer. I can think of a huge number of possible realities that have never even been attempted and most large computer projects actually fail.
2.5 2004-8-10 Reason is only path to truth?
Marc Geddes wrote: Reason is the only way to determine the truth content of one's beliefs.
DC response: Most truth comes from experimentation and physical evidence. I think "belief" and reason are oxymoron's. To "believe" is to think something is true without any reason except other "beliefs". Truth could never come from such "quicksand". If I make a very complicated and 100% logical conclusion and it is based somewhere on a "belief", the final conclusion is no better that any other conjecture. There is a concrete foundation for an argument or there is not.
2.6 2004-8-10 Beliefs of all rational observers will converge?
Marc Geddes wrote: beliefs of all rational observers would converge if everyone thought these matters for long enough
DC response: By adding the "long enough" clause you make this statement impossible to ever prove as you could say that not enough time was taken to come to a single conclusion or truth. It doesn't take long for even totally logical people to drill their arguments back to a belief. When that happens, the argument must stop because by definition you cannot "prove" a belief. The biggest problem with "absolute truth" versus "relative truth" is that it creates an "us" versus "them". This has been the basis of wars for millennium. It also stops others from expressing their opinions when the other person has set themselves up as the judge and jury of "truth".
2.7 2004-8-10 Probabilities assigned to objective truths will converge?
Marc Geddes wrote: The probabilities assigned to objective truths will converge for all observers given increasing amounts of relevant information
DC response: There was a time when I was in my early 20's that I thought any disagreement in my marriage could be solved with a proper, logical and well thought out discussion. I tried for many years and 1000's of hours to produce a "meeting of minds" with my wife but 26 years was not long enough to produce that outcome. I finally came to realize that sometimes you have to know when to agree to disagree and move on. My view of the many people much more intelligent than me, that continue to argue opposite sides of all arguments, is that you are probably wrong.
2.8 2004-8-10 Morality in part comes from human nature?
Marc Geddes wrote: Morality in part comes from human nature, which will depend on biological facts.
DC response: Morality is necessary mostly because our nature is not how we want other people to act towards us. "Survival of the fittest" is certainly natural for all living creatures including humans but most people don't want that to be how they are treated. Morality is man's attempt to escape our nature and create a better way of life.
2.9 2004-8-10 Life is good and death is bad?
Marc Geddes wrote: A universal human perception is that life is good and death is bad.
DC response: Many people would disagree with this concept, although I am not one of them. I am willing to allow others to die young (<100 years) if they wish to do so, so long as they don't stop me from living a much longer time (>150 years). Why should all people be forced to live much longer than they wish because a few of us wish to live longer?
2.10 2004-8-10 Strive to lengthen their life spans?
Marc Geddes wrote: The derived moral imperative is that humans should strive to lengthen their life spans …
DC response: I know of smokers who say that they enjoy smoking so much that even though they know they will not live as long, they persist in smoking anyway. You wouldn't allow smoking or say getting fat?
2.11 2004-8-10 Value diversity, complexity and novelty for their own sakes?
Marc Geddes wrote: Therefore it is also something of a moral imperative to value diversity, complexity and novelty for their own sakes.
DC response: I value diversity when it makes sense but thousands of languages around the world hold back world culture and progress. Complexity is easy to come by, give me simplicity that works, anyday. Much novelty is a waste of time. Some choice is good but over 50,000 new products were introduced in the USA alone last year. Was it all needed? Couldn't some of that brainpower and money have been spent finding the cure for cancer or creating nuclear fusion before all the oil runs out?
2.12 2004-8-10 Government has an essential role to play in establishing norms?
Marc Geddes wrote: The government has an essential role to play in defining property rights, resolving disputes, establishing norms and standards and enabling social co-ordination on a large scale.
DC response: Although my political persuasion is also Libertarianism, I don't believe you can have liberty and freedom when those in power believe in "objective truths" or "establishing norms". They will impose their "truths" on you and this will take away your freedom. I think that there are many laws that are needed to protect people from other people but why should I agree that your "truths" are more valid than mine?
3. 2004-8-10 Some ideas of my own.
3.1 2004-8-10 How much government do we ready need.
My suggestion is to eliminate all government employment. The government doesn't grow the food, make the houses, sew the clothes or make the cars so why do we pay well over 50% of all earned income to the government? The role of government should be to create and have contracted companies enforce regulations that set the playing field on which companies can compete. These regulations would also ensure the safety of the public and provide public infrastructure (contract out the actual work) that cannot be provided by the public itself. No monopoly should be allowed (including companies, labor unions, and trade societies (doctors, lawyers etc)) unless the scope of the operation is minimized and set in stone. (If you allow an electricity delivery monopoly to exist then it must not make the electricity or sell toasters to the public.) Don't try to "level the playing field" by taxing the rich and giving it to the poor. This only makes the rich more greedy and the poor hopelessly useless. Make "equal access (based on ability)" and not "equal opportunity" the "equal" buss word. People are not born equal and as they grow older, they will not all be "equally intelligent" or "equally productive". To provide "equal" consumption to "unequal" producers has never worked (communism, socialism) and will never work because people are not all altruistic and never will be.
- I do believe that humans will create a smarter than human AI within the next 20 years.
- I believe that near human level intelligence can be had within 5-10 years and I plan on being part of it.
- I don't think today's computers are too slow to start this project.
- I think the computing power of the human brain is highly overstated.
- I know how many neurons and dendrite connections are in our brains but what good are they when we have to fight all the time to stop from losing our concentration.
- How many times do we have to go over the same ideas over and over again because we have to compensate for our extremely fallible and mushy brains.
- Our memories are pretty good for general concepts and human faces but we have no accurate permanent memory at all.
- We are just as likely to make up the memories and then we can't tell which are which.
- I think our brains are so lousy I am astonished that we think at all.
- What could be accomplished if we had perfect concentration?
- What about perfect memory?
- What about unlimited physical size?
- How about being in many physical locations at the same time?
- What about doing the work of many people with an unlimited number of sensors, actuators etc, without delegating or having to argue with anyone?
- The advantages of today's technologies, in so many ways, are superior to humans that you could ask why we don't have an AI already? Good question.
- The hardware is only now getting fast enough to do the job. (So long as our AI doesn't just throw away the cycles.)
- The software to make an AI work takes many years to create and most AI researchers are looking in the wrong direction.
- They are more interested in some interesting side issues and publishing, than they are in making a true AI.
- I had a University professor for a partner in my business for 8 years in the 1980's and I have concluded that nothing practical can ever come out of University research.
4. 2004-10-15 Some web papers and rebuttals from me.
4.1 2004-10-27 Universal Ethics: The Foundations of Compassion in Pattern Dynamics
Ben Goertzel wrote: http://www.goertzel.org/papers/UniversalEthics.htm
On Oct 25, 2004 Ben Goertzel wrote the above article on how dynamical systems produce pattern-sympathy and how "compassion" is derived from this. My rebuttal of this fiction is stored at.David Clark wrote: http://www.rccconsulting.com/compass.htm
In bringing to Ben's attention the fact that pattern's can't have volition and to treat them as if they could have "compassion" for "their clone or near-clone patterns in your mind" is doing more than just stretching a metaphor. The following is a quote from one of his unfriendly responses to my rebuttal.
Ben Goertzel quote: "If you look at the references I gave you before, you'll see that I formally define a pattern as a kind of process -- i.e. a dynamical entity. A pattern, in short, is a process that simplifies something."
Is redefining the English language a valid argument?