But you are still missing the definition of qualia. Wikipedia has a thing on it and I am sure SEP does as well. Because there are reports of subjective experience we know that we share something of the nature of experience. Common sense can tell us that computers do not. How do we know that computers do not share the nature of conscious experience (Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)? It is not an ontologically salient question for a group focused on technology. So it is relevant to the philosophical issues of intelligence, but once you get it you have to move on. It is not a fruitful discussion unless you can derive something interesting from it. There is no test for qualia because there is no explanation for it. A profound mystery cannot be reduced to a contrived technological test or else just be dismissed. That kind of thinking is not good science and it is not good philosophy. So John's attempt to create a definition of compression of something complicated so that it can be communicated might be the start of the development of something related to contemporary AI but the attempt to claim that it defines qualia is so naïve that it is not really relevant to the subject of AGI. When you have a profound mystery you have to create ways to examine it. This is related to AGI. How do you fit it in to other knowledge. What are the observations that you have to work with. What are the theories that you have that you can use to work with it. Can you measure it. Are there indirect ways to measure it. During these initial stages you have to expect that many of your initial ideas are going to be wrong or poorly constructed. The major motivation then should not to be to salvage some initial primitive theories but to reshape them completely. To test a hypothesis about a radical theory of a profound mystery you have to first create theories of how you might conduct your experiment. If your initial theories lead you to enact major redefinitions so that you change the subject of the theory, then that is a good sign that you are not ready to test the theory. Jim On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 8:11 AM John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > > > That's according to John's definition thereof. The rest of us do not > > necessarily > > agree with such a limited view. At this stage, it cannot be absolutely > > stated > > what qualia is. For example, mine is a lot more fuzzy and abstract in terms > > of > > autonomous, identifier signalling . And that is but one view of many > > regarding > > a feature of biology, which I contend could ultimately be transposed into a > > synthetically-framed platform as its own, unique version. > > > > "autonomous, identifier signaling" > > We are on a similar wavelength :) Compression is a big word. I've not talked > about consciousness topology and kernels yet... > > > > One needs to define a term first, before trying to apply > > it to the collective consciousness of AGI. > > > > I disagree. Many AGI researchers have two overwhelming biases: > > One person is a general intelligence. > One person is a general consciousness. > > Both I believe are false. > > Seeing the forest when you are a tree requires an outside view. > > John >
------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9c94dabb0436859d-Maebd1c44e6464b2086fa7693 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
