Can Curiosity Be Programmed?

destinyland writes "AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber says his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked on problems including artificial ants and even robots that are taught how to tie shoelaces using reinforcement learning, but he believes algorithms can be written that allow the programming of curiosity itself. 'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...' He's already created art using algorithmic information theory, and can describe the simple algorithmic principle that underlies subjective beauty, creativity, and curiosity itself. And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program."

Comments

No, but it can be beaten out

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, you're not talking about children... nevermind.

curiosity 0.1

[Anonymous Coward]

#!/bin/sh
for i in who what where when why how; do
    echo "But $i, dad?"
done

I hereby submit this project to the /. community under the GPL v2.

Re:curiosity 0.1

[martin-boundary]

I hereby submit this project to the /. community under the GPL v2.

Why not the GPLv3 ?

Re:curiosity 0.1

[starbugs]

Why not the GPLv3 ?

Cause then skynet could not use it.
(They'd have a problem with section 11 paragraph 6)

Re:curiosity 0.1

[Phoe6]

The previous guy must have been a kernel hacker, thats why.

Re:curiosity 0.1

[cs02rm0]

TDD.

Can curiosity be tested?

In the abscence of a (Turing-style?) test then how can we say this script isn't a satisfactory implementation?

Re:curiosity 0.1

[Arancaytar]

You forgot the infinite loop.

Re:curiosity 0.1

[selven]

for i in Someone Something Wherever Eventually Because Somehow; do
    echo "$i"
done

Re:curiosity 0.1

[smallfries]

Eventually they grow old.

Re:curiosity 0.1

[Yvanhoe]

But why ?

Re:curiosity 0.1

[selven]

sed 's/lame/awesome/g'
sudo killall Anonymous Coward

Re:curiosity 0.1

[ikarigullwing]

*ovation, ovation*

Re:curiosity 0.1

[SEWilco]

Why not the GPLv3 ?

Licensing under GPLv3 is left as an exercise for any developer.

Re:curiosity 0.1

[khellendros1984]

You forgot to escape the space between the two words.
sudo killall Anonymous\ Coward

Re:curiosity 0.1

[jkauzlar]

This seems like a +5 interesting question. What exactly are the conditions that need to be met in order for it to be said that a program has curiosity?

There.

[w0mprat]

001 Gather data
002 Hypothesise
003 Go To 1

Re:There.

[sourcerror]

001 Gather data
002 Hypothesise
003 Profit

I fixed that for ya.

Physics of computing the universe

[BitZtream]

And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.

The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.

You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.

So sure, I'll go with the theory that its possible, just not by any thing in our universe.

Likewise, nothing in our universe could leave it to perform the calculation elsewhere, as doing so links the two realities together, so you now need to simulate both.

Everything is interconnected and the very act of attempting to simulate the universe changes the simulation. Every new version of the simulation would instantly require a new version to take into account the changes from the previous version.

The theory is ... cute at best, but unworkable.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[biryokumaru]

VMWare should, in theory, be able to simulate a system faster than the host processor, as long as it doesn't actually run that fast.

We should, in theory, be able to simulate the universe, just not as fast as the universe actually moves.

Besides, I bet we can just gloss over a lot of the boring bits and stay within a margin of error while ultimately simulating faster than the universe is actually transpiring. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[insufflate10mg]

The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.

You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.

I can't believe this for some reason. If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate? Why is a device's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[JWSmythe]

    If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curious. Sure, you can chart point A to B to C, but what if randomly it skews off to somewhere just west of point Z enroute, and observes.

    That doesn't have to be a physical route. It could be as simple as taking a random word from a dictionary, searching that on your favorite search engine, taking a random result from there, and then following the result from another random word. An unpredictable path, but that's what brings any of us to enlightenment. If you just went from home to work and back every day, and never turned down the wrong road, just to see where it goes, you'll never discover what is really out there. What is your universe? I've known so many people who only know points A and B, and never even considered point C, much less all the wonderful things to experience in between or beyond.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[some_guy_88]

Sure, but put simply, he's just saying that there is no such thing as randomness and that with absolute knowledge of all the variables, one could predict with certainty the exact state of any object at any given period of time from now in a similar way to how you could crudely work out how long it's going to take a ball to hit the ground when dropped from a certain height with basic high school Newtonian physics.

That relies on there being no randomness in the universe of course...

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Thiez]

A deterministic universe is interesting from the 'do we have free will?'-perspective, but the whole uncertainty principle ruins our attempts to simulate the universe even if we could build one 'outside' reality. Frustrating really, we are surrounded by very uncooperative hardware.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Urza9814]

It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own. Why make such an assumption? I mean, if we're going to go so far as to hypothesize a computer built outside of our own universe, why couldn't this outside place obey radically different rules than our own universe? Suppose that outside our universe, there is no such thing as time. Calculations are put into the computer and the result returns instantly. While it is true that theoretically you could still never completely match the universe, as your results would change it and then you would need to recalculate, each run of the calculations would surely get you closer to a true solution. And, if it turns out that our universe is just slightly "grainy" at extremely small distances - if the Planck length or something along those lines ends up quantizing distance in our universe - you would eventually reach the correct answer. Just as the pattern of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually reach 1 if you assume you are rounding the final answer to the nearest thousandth.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[ScytheLegion]

I'll be programming all of this tomorrow... on my new iPad

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Urza9814]

Basically - there's no way to store more information in a given area than what it already contains. In order to fully simulate the universe, at full (or greater) speed, you would have to know absolutely everything about absolutely every particle and subatomic particle, etc. And that includes the particles that make up the processor itself.

It's like this: Say you have a 300 DPI printer. You print out a full page of text. Now, you want to fit all the information about that page into some sub-region of the page, printed on the same printer. Ok, so you say you can just shrink the text or encode it in binary or something, which is fine - except somehow also fit the information about the shrunken/encoded text in there. As you can see, you enter a recursive nightmare. And as your printer is a fixed resolution, you would quickly reach a point where any attempts to fit more information results in a blurred pixelated mess.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Potor]

Suppose that outside our universe, there is no such thing as time. Calculations are put into the computer and the result returns instantly.

Instantly - as an instant - is still time. And relative to the input. Only if the results came before the input would this universe be different, and then again, "before", like "instantly", is still temporal.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There's a workaround. You don't need to simulate the entire universe at one time, and there's no way that anything inside the universe would ever be able to tell that huge swaths of the universe aren't being actively simulated.

Reasoning: If a universe simulator needs to have more states than exist inside the universe (we're both assuming this) then then any process which verifies the universe simulator would also need to have more states than exist inside the universe. Therefore, the universe can only be fully simulated from outside the universe, and you could only determine that the universe was fully simulated from outside the universe. From inside the universe, all you could simulate and all you could check would be a subset of the universe you are in.

So you could actually pull off a neat trick, just like the human eye does. The human eye doesn't actually see clearly except in the very middle of the vision. But, wherever you look, whatever you're looking at is clearly resolved. Your brain gets the distinct impression that it's looking at the entire scene clearly, except it's not. Only the part that it's actually looking at is clear.

Well, that's enough hacking of the universe for today. I need a beer.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[BitZtream]

Yes, I agree, I should have specified.

We will not be able to simulate in real time or faster.

However, glossing over bits means you are also, wrong, however so slightly.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[paeanblack]

What about a PDF that describes itself?

http://dblaz.beevomit.org/quine.pdf

Solves your "recursion" problem quite neatly.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[BitZtream]

It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own. Why make such an assumption?

Because thats they way science works. Its based on observations.

Of course, your imagination is part of the universe and may just be better connected to whatever may be outside our universe than I am, so you could of course be entirely correct.

But ... if we don't go based on observations then its not science, its more like fantasy or religion, take your pick.

The final part of it is simple, the universe doesn't round, the pattern only reaches 1 because you introduce error intentionally to make things easier on yourself (or your calculations).

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[precariousgray]

Well, it looks like we're going to have to get at the garbage file. The way I figure it, after we have it on hand, we'll be able to read all the intra-office gossip going around the building containing the server our universe is running on, then we can figure out who the real PEBCAKs are. Yeah, you see, after that we're going to hack this Gibson to commandeer another network-attached universe-computing machine, and use that to start up our own botnet in the real world. From there, the possibilities are limitless!

Our Beowulf cluster universe computing overlords will never know what hit 'em!

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[BitZtream]

There is no free will, uncertainty or chaos.

There is only our inability to understand/simulate it on the level required to remove the little bits of errors that we refer to as 'randomness' or entropy.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Have Brain Will Rent]

That's probably why God invented QM - as a space/computation saving device.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Your argument seems to be saying there is no such thing as lossless compression.

Gödel's theorems pretty much explains why the universe cannot be simulated by anything inside the universe.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[wisty]

It won't just need to be a bit random. It will need to be capable of spotting (and following up) on false leads. Making mistakes. Look at John Nash. Look at Kepler (yes, that Kepler) who spent most of his time trying to make the planets' orbits "fit inside" his crazy "Harmonices Mundi" theories. A bit of geometry (Kepler solids) that he tried to extended to "harmonic analysis to music, meteorology and astrology; harmony resulted from the tones made by the souls of heavenly bodies—and in the case of astrology, the interaction between those tones and human souls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonices_Mundi).

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[p00ya]

Even at a slower rate than real time you cannot simulate the universe from within the universe. This has been proved by Cantor diagonalization (see Wolpert's "Physical limits of inference" paper).

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[mooingyak]

simply is recalculating what happened in the past instead.

which could still be enormously useful.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[cortesoft]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[SharpFang]

You're missing the difference between running/emulating/duplicating and simulation.

You don't need to simulate every quark of every atom of a car body to have a reasonable car simulator game. You use a simplified model that approximates the reality to a degree that is defined in requirements of the project.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[codeButcher]

... and then some of us think that the universe is in fact a computation.

Here are some 1999 movies that explore this idea: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[noidentity]

The entire universe CAN be computed. You'd need a computer the size of the universe, with the same laws and state. In fact, our universe exactly fits the requirements, and is computing what will happen right now.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Warbothong]

There is a difference between data and information (the Shannon kind). Computing the Universe would, indeed, need to process data about everything in the Universe, but the amount of information that requires is smaller than that (there cannot be more information that data, since the information is stored in the data, but everything that is compressible allows the removal of data without the removal of information, thus the amount of information can only ever be smaller than the amount of data).

An example of a very simple, yet incredibly naive, compression system is run-length encoding, which replaces runs like "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" with "50 zeros". A more general form of this is LZ70 encoding, which describes new data in terms of previous data, so that "1010" (which run-length encoding could not compress) would be described as "10 followed by two characters the same as those 2 places behind them". To decode this we take the initial "10" then to get the next character we take whatever is two places behind us, which is a "1", then to get the next one we take the character two places behind our new position, which is a "0", so we get "1010". The cool thing about LZ70 is that it is recursive, so that "1010101010101010101010" can be encoded as "10 followed by 20 characters the same as those 2 places behind them". In this case it will generate "1010" in the same way as before, then look two places back and find the "1" which it had previously generated, so that the last 9 occurances of "10" are encoded as references to data which does not exist (until the previous characters are decoded/generated, that is).

Taking your paper example, let's say we have some 300dpi text which we want to represent in a smaller bit of the page. We do some form of lossless compression on the dots making up the text and end up with a smaller representation, let's say we stick it in the corner of the page. The problem you pointed out is that we now have to encode the bit we just put in the corner, then we have to encode this encoding, and so on. However, using an encoding system which can reference data it has compressed away, similar to LZ70, we could represent this infinite recursion by saying "followed by everything after position zero, without decoding". This, of course, is an infinite loop, since the instruction to include "everything after position zero, without decoding" occurs after position zero, but this is exactly what we want. Even though this data cannot be decoded in finite time, that doesn't stop us performing computations, since the entire information content is available.

Now let's apply this to the Universe. Everything is a wave, and we have strong, electroweak and gravitational fields. Waves can be decomposed using Fourier analysis into coefficients of sine waves, so we can store all of the information about the entire Universe as a set of numbers representing these coefficients (of course, a Fourier series can be infinite, but if we're assuming that data for the entire Universe is available in the first place then we can assume it is finite). Our program would consist of Physical laws, which themselves are incredibly redundant (they are all just conservation laws and symmetries, which by definition contain redundancy and are described recursively), formulated in a way that makes sense for compressed Fourier coefficients. Given this massive amount of coefficient data, compressed as much as possible so that it takes less space to store than the Universe, and including the computer via self-reference, we simply iterate the computations over the compressed data. There is nothing to stop this running faster than realtime either since, to use the analogy of the "VMWare simulating a machine faster than the host" the use of compression is much like embedding optimisations in VMWare such that inefficient code running on the virtual machine would be translated into equivalent, efficient code for running on the host, making the virtual machine run faster than the host for inefficient code.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[HateBreeder]

You made so much sense in your previous post.. too bad you had to make this one as well.

Simulating the universe from within the universe is impossible - regardless of the rate, as your simulated universe should contain the simulation itself.... which is a positive feedback loop.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Warbothong]

I think that this could be covered by the fact that senses are imperfect. A lot of intelligence is about making sensible decisions and conclusions based on incomplete and unreliable data, but just because something is the most rational action to take doesn't mean it will necessarily be correct. Making incorrect decisions and conclusions will lead to dead ends (hopefully ;), but the things discovered on the way could lead to entirely novel discoveries. As a down-to-Earth example, imagine you need to complete a report for work but could do with some more details from a colleague who isn't picking up the phone. You're out at a work party and think you may have spotted them from behind, but can't be sure. The rational thing to do is to approach the person and see if it's them, since you stand to gain if it is them and have nothing to lose if it's not. You tap this person on the shoulder, they turn around and it's not them, but your apology turns into a conversation, you get to know each other and a few years later you're married. It's a contrived example I know, but here the imperfection of our sight (we couldn't know the person's face when they were facing away) plus a rational action based upon it ends up being incorrect, but opens up a completely new series of events which we wouldn't have guessed possible based on our ("A to B to C") reason behind taking the decision to approach.

From a more academic perspective, there are many failed Physics theories which have nevertheless created strong branches of Mathematics, some of which have even proved useful in different areas of Physics.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[asliarun]

You made so much sense in your previous post.. too bad you had to make this one as well.

Simulating the universe from within the universe is impossible - regardless of the rate, as your simulated universe should contain the simulation itself.... which is a positive feedback loop.

(For the sake of argument) So what?
By your definition, our universe should collapse every time we bring two mirrors parallel to each other.

One other thing: Why can't VMWare run an OS faster than the OS running natively?
If you assume that VMWare does a better job of optimizing hardware utilization compared to the OS, the OS will definitely run faster in a VMWare host.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Lord Lode]

A Turing machine can simulate a Turing machine. So is the universe no Turing machine?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[HateBreeder]

Why? because it means that the amount of information you need to simulate will grow to infinity, which is impossible to contain.

example:
Simulate the universe from within... when you reach the point where you simulate your own simulation, it must contain the simulated universe, which in turn contains another simulation of the universe and so forth.

You can't simulate that because you will quickly run out of memory. Regardless of how much memory you have for the simulation.

Assuming perfect mirrors....

When you bring to mirrors together, your information is in fact bounded by the reflected wave-length of light. i.e. you can't mirror any feature who's physical dimensions are smaller than that of the wave length.

Therefore you're not actually displaying an infinite amount of information. Furthermore, for imperfect mirrors, you are actually losing data with each 'recursion'. more so, if the mirror placement is not perfectly parallel, you will have the image crawl to an edge.

regarding VMWare... sure, you can create an OS that is horrible when ran outside VMWare...
but then the simulation is imperfect, and it becomes completely irrelevant for the discussion.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[rpetre]

Actually a mirror doesn't add any information, it just reflects photons :) So even for perfect parallel mirrors, at best you'll be able to trap photons that move perfectly perpendicular to them (and keep for a finite period of time others which are close). IMO the only possible perfect simulation of the Universe that would be contained in it is the Universe itself, anything other would have less entropy by definition so it won't be a perfect simulation. Going to RTFA now, because the first part actually seems to be interesting.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[sourcerror]

We should, in theory, be able to simulate the universe, just not as fast as the universe actually moves.

And what about Schrödinger's cat?
We cannot measure anything completely accurately, so our physical constants and formulas are all flawed.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[sourcerror]

I guess not. At the atomic level there's a lot of randomness.
Einstein wasn't quite statisfied with these consequences, that's why he said: God doesn't play dice.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Terrasque]

Oblig XKCD:

http://xkcd.com/505/

Incidentally, it's my favorite xkcd strip

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[FlyingBishop]

I'm fairly sure your parent was trolling. You cannot construct a Turing machine that simulates itself simulating itself simulating itself... it's an infinite loop. You can't even state the problem, because in order to do the simulation it has to simulate the simulation, and in order to simulate the simulation it has to simulate itself simulating the simulation, and so on.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[marcosdumay]

Not with infinite memory anyway. And yours also doesn't have infinite memory.

A smaler memory computer may or may not be able to simulate a larger memory computer, that depends on what the larger memory computer is doing.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[3D-nut]

Didn't Feynman prove that no deterministic machine can simulate nonlocality? I read or heard this somewhere, and now I can't find the proof on the web.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[The_Wilschon]

The key to your undoing is in your first sentence. You are clearly aware of Shannon entropy or information. The universe contains a certain amount of information, regardless of the amount of data you use to describe that information. You cannot simulate X amount of information while only using Y information X. So, the only in-the-universe computer capable of simulating the entire universe exactly is the universe.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Eudial]

It doesn't necessarily need to have explicit randomization. An algorithm that exhibits chaotic behavior is just as efficient, and more elegant, as we have yet to identify a 'randomizer' in our own brains.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[mcgrew]

At the atomic level there's a lot of randomness.

Can we be sure? What seems random may not in fact be truly random. The flip of a coin is considered random, but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.

Rather than being random it could be that it's just more complex than we know, or that we can't determine the variables with enough accuracy. What is the exact value of PI?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[wurp]

It looks to me as if Wolpert's "Physical limits of inference" paper asserts that we cannot predict the future, which is not quite the same thing.

For example, if we could simulate the evolution of the whole wave function of the universe (but not which "branch" an observation event would select), then we could simulate all possible futures, but not which one we would end up in. The future we end up in would be part of the simulation, though.

Please correct me if my cursory glance at the paper left me with the wrong understanding of its point.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[wurp]

Dammit! I hate that the only way to make one post "no karma bonus" is to change my permanent preferences. I keep forgetting to turn it off afterwards, and it's a pain in the ass to do so, besides.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[mcgrew]

If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curious

It's going to need more than randomness to be sentient. I wrote a program back in 1983 that was designed to be a smart-assed Turing test machine, and it usually passed, giving smart-assed answers in context. It relied on a controlled randomness. It was a total failure, though, because the purpose in writing it was to demonstrate that intelligence, like everything else, is easily faked. Trouble was, people who played with the program believed it was actually thinking, which was its failure.

The first one was written for a 16k Timex-Sinclair computer. With today's monster computers you an fake anything, very easily.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[blahplusplus]

It also assumes a human centric perspective, what if the universe is 1 bit of information and the many bits of the universe from our perspective are actually fractions of 1 bit of information?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Powys]

The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so

How about recursion? An atom is kind of like a solar system, a solar system is kind of like a galaxy, and a galaxy is kind of like the universe. (And perhaps the universe is kind of like the multiverse?)

I kind of jest, but not necessarily.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Anonymous Coward]

> We should, in theory, be able to simulate the universe, just not as fast as the universe actually moves.

No, you couldn't even simulate the entire thing slower, because you'd need to be able to store the full state of every particle in the universe. Due to quantum uncertainty, you couldn't even measure the full state of any particle without changing it, but even if you could, you couldn't store more than one particle's worth of data in less than one particle. So it would take a computer the size of the universe just to store the data of the universe. And that computer would have to count itself as not part of the universe, otherwise we have an infinite storage loop.

Note: you could simulate *a* universe (just do a much smaller one, so that you could actually store it), just not *our* universe. And simulating *a* universe would still highly scientifically useful if it ran on the same rules and ran fast enough to test things out.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[kalirion]

You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.

Um, why? All you need is a decent compression algorithm.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Zerth]

You don't have to simulate the universe iteratively down the chain. When you get to a point where the sim builds a simulator, replace the logic of the machine with a pointer back to the head of the simulation.

Watch them oooh and ahh that the sim-sim machine works in sim-real-time, despite what logic says.

Then be greatly amused when they realize that changing the sim changes their reality:)

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[MobyDisk]

I know what you are saying: if you want to create a system that simulates the state of a bunch of particles, you must have at least enough memory to store those particles, which means the simulation device cannot be built from a subset of those particles. It seems sensible, but it is not necessarily true...

Sometimes you can implement an algorithm is a very tight memory space if you throw out intermediate values and recalculate them when needed. This is extremely inefficient, and memoization is the usual fix - which trades memory for performance.

So to calculate all the particles in the universe at time T, you don't necessarily need all the particles at time T-1. You could just start back from the beginning and recalculate as needed.

You also have some other conveniences: Quantum theory shows the universe is random below a certain size, so you might be able to approximate the universe without actually losing anything. The speed of light limits the size of the light cone so you know that particles beyond a certain space-time distance from each other will not have any effect on each other. And even if it did, you know the uncertainly principle means that certain values don't actually matter until they are observed: so they need not be calculated. And Planck's constant tells you that below a certain energy level, random background effects become more important that the effect of neighboring particles. So if a particle is far enough away, it's contribution to another particle can be ignored. Lastly, the universe has a certain amount of redundancy that could be eliminated through compression algorithms.

I've often thought that some of our observations about the limitations of the universe are actually indications that we ARE being simulated. What if things at the quantum level are random because there is a limitation to the floating-point accuracy of the computer that simulates us? Or maybe it is because we are trying to look at events shorter than the "frame rate" (AKA - the delta t between each calculated moment) in the universe. Perhaps the speed of light is finite as a convenience to limit the big-O?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[MobyDisk]

but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.

Unfortunately, you can't. :-( That's called the hidden variable theory. It has been proven that there can be no set of information that could be used to compute quantum randomness.

Einstein refused to believe that, and proposed the EPR thought experiment as a way to disprove it. Unfortunately for him, he died before John Bell resolved the EPR paradox, finally disproving hidden variables.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[MobyDisk]

There's no limit to the range of the fundamental forces.

But there is a limit to the speed at which they propagate. Therefore, you know that some things cannot effect other things until at least a specific amount of time has passed.

So for a particle P at time T, another particle P0 at time T0 could be far enough away in space-time that it could not possible affect particle P at time T. It's called the light cone.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[MobyDisk]

Some quick points that were made in related threads:
- QM: Some parts of the universe are random.
- Uncertainty principle: Some parts can just be ignored until observed.
- Light cone: Some parts do not impact other parts, so it can be broken up into pieces.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[JWSmythe]

    4.

    Our brains are the randomizer. It's just an illusion that there's some sort of organization to the chaos. :)

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[insufflate10mg]

Mod this man up; and please, if someone has another good argument, please take the time to post it... for the people.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[ultranova]

VMWare should, in theory, be able to simulate a system faster than the host processor, as long as it doesn't actually run that fast.

Assuming that the host system has more storage capacity (memory) than the target system, then yes. Otherwise no.

We should, in theory, be able to simulate the universe, just not as fast as the universe actually moves.

I'm not so sure of it. A smaller universe, perhaps; but a complete simulation of this universe running within this universe would need to include itself, which would lead to infinite recursion and thus infinite storage requirements.

This leads to an interesting question: is the information storage capacity of the universe finite, and if it is, how much of it is currently used? Based on thermodynamics, I'd say that yes, it is: remember, entropy is the amount of reorganizations that go unnoticed in a system, and that has a very natural mapping to unused areas of storage space. Then again, entropy increasing seems to suggest that data is being deleted... Argh! The universe is being formatted!

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[SEWilco]

You can construct a Turing machine which simulates itself... but you'll never finish building it because you'll keep adding tape to it until the universe ends.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Very true! What if the universe was complete nonsense and if you just wrote down whatever nonsense came into your head that would be a really good theory?

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[Mike Blakemore]

The computer itself is the simulation and so there is no need for an additional 'outside our universe' computer, but rather a platform of rules for the computer to operate. Also, keep in mind that a computer doesn't need hardware, just 1's and 0's.

The human mind cannot comprehend infinite time or space and so we should inherently know that much of the reason and functionality of our existence is incomprehensible and even unfathomable to our small human minds.

Everyone should read God's Debris by Scott Adams.

I've studied AI stuff for a few years now and my view on reality is constantly evolving the more I learn...

I am under the impression that everything in our existence, broken down to its simplest form, is nothing but a series of facts (observed or otherwise unknown to us) in specific patterns. These patterns of facts, glued together to form data trees, comprise all of reality.

Its like all of matter is one giant glob of putty, constantly churning, forming new random facts and data patterns. Much like how matter is neither destroyed or created; it is recycled.

Reminds me of a recent article about Horizontal Gene Transfer.

We are all just subsystems of a bigger dataset and there is no real individualism.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[StikyPad]

What is the exact value of PI?

C/d

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[DragonWriter]

At the atomic level there's a lot of randomness.

Can we be sure?

Insofar as scientific results are "sure", yes.

The flip of a coin is considered random, but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.

Possibly, but a flip of a coin is considerably above the atomic level; in many cases (the exceptions are, by definition, chaotic systems) randomness at a lower level is "smoothed out" at higher levels. This is why, e.g., its fairly easy to calculate lots of behavior of macroscopic objects under normal conditions even though the individual particles that make up those objects can do all kinds of odd things.

What is the exact value of PI?

ln -1
-----
  i

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[PatDev]

Technically, John Bell only disproved local hidden variables. Non-Local hidden variable theories, unpopular and/or unlikely though they may be, were not invalidated then.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[sourcerror]

In information theory there's no difference between randomness and inaccessible information. Information is the lack of randomness. (That's why it's measured in entropy.)

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[tristanreid]

You're pre-supposing that your analogy is really how the universe works.

There are programs that can output themselves (google quine). The output of the program is the entire source code of the program. It takes some cleverness, but it's possible to do.

-t.

Re:Physics of computing the universe

[p00ya]

No, the inference devices in Wolpert's paper can be as simple as answering yes/no questions about the worldline. Essentially there always exists a question that can't be answered by a device from within that worldline. That "future we end up in" can be defined as a paradox and hence not exist.

Output=42

[xactuary]

Somehow it always comes down to being 42.

Re:Output=42

[cptnapalm]

Which makes it highly improbable. Since the highly improbable people have a spaceship with an Infinite Improbability drive, it is highly likely that the highly improbable fact, is in fact, true.

Can Curiosity Be Programmed?

[poind3xt3r]

Yes... i mean, no... i mean, maybe. Let me try.

Yeah?

[oldhack]

Why you wanna know?

Coding For Patterns of Anomalies

[neorush]

Aren't we really just talking about coding for patterns of anomalies? We know how to code for patterns, we know how to code for anomalies. Isn't it a matter of processing huge data sets and looking for patterns that have not been recorded before? Of course, you could argue that whether or not the pattern is relevant is the big problem, but curiosity is not necessarily about relevance.

Re:Coding For Patterns of Anomalies

[SharpFang]

Not only.

There are the following factors:
laziness vs boredom: save energy when not required, but don't waste it on overhead of inactivity if profit is achievable by reasonably low increase.
curiosity vs caution: obtain new data deemed valuable, at reasonable cost/risk. The caveat is the value function, which must consider potential usefulness of the data, its availability and uniqueness.

Re:Coding For Patterns of Anomalies

[malignant_minded]

Another thing about curiousity is what attracts people varies from person to person. So when you hear about break throughs that people have found it is often because they have a curiousity for certain patterns, like how many tile knights moves away they are from another person at a urinal. They walk around look at things in life through one lens and find things that match that while others find different matches and applications.

Don't be evil

[gmuslera]

Every time you program curiosity, a lolcat dies. "What happens if" is a very dangerous thing to teach to amoral beings.

Re:Don't be evil

[Siberwulf]

If you weren't curious, the lolcat would still be 50% alive, damnit!

Re:Don't be evil

[fyngyrz]

"What happens if" is a very dangerous thing to teach to amoral beings.

You've just identified one of the key problems with representative government.

Re:Don't be evil

[asliarun]

If curiosity is non-random and non-arbitrary as the article claims, will it end up killing Schroedinger's lolcat?

Re:Don't be evil

[sgtrock]

"What happens if" is a very dangerous thing to teach to amoral beings.

You've just identified one of the key problems with representative government.

You've just identified one of the key problems with government. :)

I haven't played it yet, but

[Culture20]

I've watched the ending... Isn't his goal the driving force behind the game Portal?

AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber says his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.'

Bit early...

[Bangmaker]

Should we not create computers with at least near human intelegence before we try to give them curiosity? It seems pretty useless to me to give a computer curiosity in the hope that humans might learn something when, at its current state, the computer could not decipher the information it is curious about. I guess we could still look to the future, but why waste this time on such things when we could be programming for the iPad?

Re:Bit early...

[aldld]

I guess we could still look to the future, but why waste this time on such things when we could be programming for the iPad?

Because they're developing curiosity for the iPad.

Yeah, there's even an app for that.

Re:Bit early...

[ChrisMP1]

Um, perhaps we're doing it because of our own curiosity?

Re:Bit early...

[Quackers_McDuck]

I'd say that we won't achieve near human intelligence /unless/ we try to give the AI curiosity. Curiosity in this context means a desire to learn, or a desire to find new patterns in the world, which seems pretty much necessary for any near-human AI to have (indeed, I think it would be more challenging to build an AI that achieves near-human intelligence but does not exhibit curiosity).

Re:Bit early...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Your first and second statement are refuted by the existence of the human members on my condo board. However the same board does stand as proof of the possibility entertained by your parenthetical remark.

Re:Bit early...

[maxume]

I generally find the behavior of property boards to be unbelievably curious.

Re:Bit early...

[sowth]

You don't understand the guy's goal. He really hates cats, and he heard the saying: "Curiosity killed the cat." He is just bringing the plan to its natural evolution.

programming

[wizardforce]

I think that the approach commonly taken to achieve some form of AI (curiosity as an example) through programming methods may be a flawed way of going about it. We probably should go about the problem in a similar way to how biological systems developed various aspects of AI. That is, build a system that has some basic rules for its operation that tends to form a system where curiosity and intelligence in general is an emergent property rather than one that is strictly programmed into the system. Take an existing system with some degree of "creativity" inherent in it and model our own technology to at first, mimic the natural system and over time, we tweak the system to suit our purposes as It is extremely difficult to build such systems from scratch.

AI has fully matured

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see serious researchers are at work figuring this stuff out, now that they've got a working definition of intelligence and have figured out how to make intelligent programs.

of course it can

[walkoff]

When I was a fledgling programmer in the 80s I worked on some financial AI programs for a bank with some very smart people with lots of letters after their names and programming artificial curiosity was assigned to me. After some thought and a lot of dead ends I managed to program a reasonable (for our needs) facsimile of curiosity by assigning weights to the various pathways the program was evaluating and making those weights tend towards 0 (curiosity satisfied) or 1 (Curious) without ever reaching the final values. By having the program modify the weights and make decisions on which paths to follow based on those weights the program acted as if it was curious and came up with several interesting results that were completly unexpected.

Re:of course it can

[jwhitener]

That doesn't sound like curiosity to me. More like a "survival of the fittest" result, within an environment that has changing conditions. Evolution driven programming is one suggested method of developing real AI. Let the organism (program) grow and breed (copy) with minor variations (mutations) in each generation.

To quote Portal

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiosity Sphere: Who are you? What is that? Oh! What's that? What's THAT? What is THAT?

Curiosity Sphere: Ooooh! That thing has numbers on it.

Curiosity Sphere: Hey! Look at that thing. No, that other thing!

Curiosity Sphere: Where are we going? Are you coming back? What's that noise? Is that a gun? Do you smell something burning? Ooooohh... what's in heeeere?

Curiosity Sphere: Oh hey! You're the lady from the test. Hi!

Psychohistory

[bbeans]

Azimov would be proud

Show me the runny

[DriedClexler]

Schmidhuber has interesting claims, like about his Goedel machine, an algorithm that makes provably globally optimal self-modifications.

But he never seems to get around to actually writing the code, or even non-vague pseudocode to implement these algorithms to show how they actually work and that they actually work. I guess it's just an "implementation issue". Ah, the chorus of the pure theorist...

Re:Show me the runny

[Internalist]

No, he knows and has explicitly stated in a few places that it's uncomputable, in much the same way that Kolmogorov Complexity is uncomputable, but an interesting and potentially useful theoretical construct, nonetheless.

This vein of Schmidhüber's work is more or less descended from Solomonoff's work on induction and Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theory stuff (the line of descent is less explicit with the latter), and a bunch of Schmidhüber's descendents, most prominently his student Marcus Hutter and *his* student Shane Legg have taken this ball and run with it in interesting ways.

Re:Show me the runny

[aaaaaaargh!]

You're right, there is not only the minor problem that it can't be implemented. The utility function is the another big issue. Programs like this theoretical Gödel machine or working machines like neural networks and kernel method implementations depend on a utility function that can tell you whether you're getting closer to a solution or not (notwithstanding misleading local maxima and minima), and in order to have such a function you already need to have an intimate understanding of the problem at hand. Unfortunately, there is no good, computable theory for what "understanding a problem" might mean.

Re:Show me the runny

[DriedClexler]

No, he knows and has explicitly stated in a few places that it's uncomputable, in much the same way that Kolmogorov Complexity is uncomputable, but an interesting and potentially useful theoretical construct, nonetheless.

Right, it's useful, except for the whole "getting an actual use out of it" thing.

This vein of Schmidhüber's work is more or less descended from Solomonoff's work on induction and Chaitin's Algorithmic Information Theory stuff (the line of descent is less explicit with the latter), and a bunch of Schmidhüber's descendents, most prominently his student Marcus Hutter and *his* student Shane Legg have taken this ball and run with it in interesting ways.

Yes, I'm familiar with AIT and Hutter's and Legg's work. Still no actual uses. Still no clear pseudocode. Or, rather, your post already listed all of Hutter's and Legg's insights that have proven to be useful for a practical purpose.

Re:Show me the runny

[Internalist]

[...]

Right, it's useful, except for the whole "getting an actual use out of it" thing.

[...]

Yes, I'm familiar with AIT and Hutter's and Legg's work. Still no actual uses. Still no clear pseudocode. Or, rather, your post already listed all of Hutter's and Legg's insights that have proven to be useful for a practical purpose.

Ah, I see what's going on. What these folks do is---to a first approximation---math ("Math, the first pseudocode!" "Pretty clear, too!"). Sometimes math can be useful for further math. Your use of "use/useful" clearly differs from mine. You must be an engineer.

Re:Show me the runny

[DriedClexler]

I am an engineer, yes, but that's not the problem here, since it's not the lack of final practical results that bothers me. What bothers me is that none of them can actually *spell out* the algorithm that constitutes a Goedel machine so I can go write one, even if it could only be a simple toy model at this point.

Demanding that an algorithm be specific isn't "the engineer mindset gone mad". It's um, the definition of an algorithm ... what these guys are supposed to be producing.

I can't infer what the algorithm actually *is* from his paper. And it's not because I'm stupid -- neither can anyone else, not even simple approximations for simple problems as a "proof of concept".

Do you agree that this would be necessary for their work to count as progress?

this isn't exactly new speculation

[Trepidity]

A minority of AI researchers have tackled the problem on and off, and even built some small-scale models of curious agents. One of the classic precursors is Doug Lenat's 1977 system Automated Mathematician, which shifted from the idea of using AI to prove theorems, to instead looking for theorems that would be interesting if they were true (it didn't actually prove them; it was an interesting-conjecture generator). Essentially a model of mathematical curiosity.

Some interesting more recent work is a 2001 thesis that modeled curiosity as a social phenomenon in societies of agents, where agents try to find things that are: 1) new enough to interest its fellow agents; yet not 2) so new that they were incomprehensible in its cultural context.

(I'm an AI researcher, though not precisely in this area.)

Re:this isn't exactly new speculation

[MichaelSmith]

How about chess playing software? Doesn't it experiment and explore possibilities?

Re:this isn't exactly new speculation

[slimjim8094]

Well it's actually quite methodical. Generally, there's a certain number of moves look-ahead (more with a faster processor) and it's simple to pick the optimal move that will result in the best scenario, say, 7 moves down the road.

I don't know if you've ever heard of a book called Godel Escher Bach, by a man named Douglas Hofstadter. But in it he posits that chess requires intelligent computers to play - this was written about 10 years before chess-playing computers. He didn't like the idea that it could just be brute-forced, but that's effectively how it happened...

Just remember...

[jnnnnn]

the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program

.. as long as you start with a piece of fairy cake.

Kidding, right?

[djupedal]

Let me see....
if touch == [ouch] {
@"damn it";
}
else {
@"oh mama";
}

Only as smart as...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

If curiosity is a behavior, then it should be pretty straight forward. In fact, depending on how you define "curiosity", then there are already many examples of programs that are curious. Google or Bing or any web crawler is definitely "curious". A satnav that searches for the best route from point A to point B could be "curious"...

A robot is only as smart as its smartest programmer.

And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.

The problem that is often ignored with this and similar claims is the problem of observability as illustrated in areas such as quantum physics, and even economics.

You cannot calculate the behavior of a black box without opening it. If opening it alters the state of its contents, then it may even be impossible. And if you have no means of observation to begin with, then it is downright impossible. Before you can claim you can calculate the next moment in time, you must be able to claim you have observed and know all the variables within the system of interest.

Re:Only as smart as...

[jackchance]

In fact, depending on how you define "curiosity", then there are already many examples of programs that are curious.

This is certainly true. reinforcement learning algorithms trade off between exploitation, choosing actions based on the assumption of a static environment, and exploration, testing alternatives, in case the environment has changed. This could be considered a kind of curiosity. What is more interesting to me, as a neuroscientist, is the human ability detect interesting sights or sounds and focus on them. It's like we have a fast but rough novelty detector that can guide our attention towards some event. There is evidence that the amygdala is key element in the neural circuit that detects interesting events, although the mechanism of detection isn't fully understood.

A robot is only as smart as its smartest programmer.

This, under normal defintions of smart, is clearly false. One example: I can program an AI search algorithm to play chess that will make far smarter choices than i would ever be able to (i'm not that good at chess). Some might argue that a search algorithm isn't smart, it's just fast. But to an external observer interacting with the agent, the AI seems much smarter than me, the programmer.

Re:Only as smart as...

[thesandtiger]

That depends on what you mean by "smart" doesn't it?

Right now there are genetic algorithms that come up with designs that work better than man-made designs (in some cases) and operate in ways that the person who programmed the original algorithms often cannot even begin to figure out.

In a very limited way, that program is thus "smarter" (or "better") than the person who programmed it.

On the black-box issue, no, you cannot calculate it perfectly, but you can certainly come up with a reasonably close simulation of it - which is actually what we do with the universe right now via physics. Our simulations have been getting better all the time. While we will never be able to come up with a 100% perfect simulation of the universe (due to infinite recursion among other things), we may well be able to come up with simulations that are as perfect as need be for any arbitrary sub-set of the universe. Not the same thing, of course, but close enough for most purposes.

Re:Only as smart as...

[chelberg]

I entirely disagree, depending on your definition of "smart." A program can be "smarter" than its smartest programmer in a particular field. For example, I can program a computer to play chess better than I can. I can program a computer to solve algebraic and calculus problems I'd never be able to tackle, and I am a good mathematician. I can foresee a program that can drive a car better than I can (smoother, fewer accidents, better gas mileage, etc.). Already there are programs that fly airplanes as good or better than fallible human pilots, or their programmers (who may not be able to fly at all). There are even adaptive algorithms that can cope with the loss of part of a wing, an engine, etc. very well (> human performance).

Even early AI showed that a program could diagnose diseases better than any given physician.

All of these are examples of programs "smarter" than their programmers. In the case of disease diagnosis, I doubt any of the programmers could do even a poor job at the task the program was good at.

Re:Only as smart as...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

This, under normal defintions of smart, is clearly false.

You are right. I think "wisdom" or "intelligence" may be more of what I was after, but even then, without a specific definition, it is a statement that cannot always hold true anymore. As you rightly point out, speed and processing bandwidth are part of what goes into producing results, and computers are already better than any programmer at that. Although I would say, most if not all "smart" computers take full advantage of their processing upper-hand to compensate for their lack of intelligence... Of course, such "smart" robots are still the product of the craft of a programmer, which brings my contention full circle.

I worry the original author may also have had a different, more specific definition of "curiosity" that wouldn't include the likes of google, etc... in which case I've been had.

It Would Not Matter

[b4upoo]

A completely deterministic program creating the universe and all in it would be meaningless unless some being could use it like a TV show. Perhaps a universe that is not completely deterministic might be a better product with more uses to a supreme being. Perhaps that is why the classic debate between mankind having no free will among its members verses those that believe it is all about free will leaves both sides wanting. Individuals with limited free will may match the actions of other things in this universe.

Evolution staring us in the face. SURVIVAL!

[DigiShaman]

As I understand it, everything we learn and do can ultimately be condensed into one thing. Survival. Think about it, we are alive today because the core tenant of our existence hasn't been broken yet. We, as a species continue to survive. Different behaviors do nothing but aid or take a different path to maintaining this goal. Perhaps curiosity is nothing but an attempt to make our survival more efficient. Perhaps it's a luxury only suited for higher level organism. Who knows.

My advice? Just create many iterations of AI and pit them against each other. Lather, rinse, repeat. In other words, just let nature take its course.

Re:Evolution staring us in the face. SURVIVAL!

[Fantastic Lad]

As I understand it, everything we learn and do can ultimately be condensed into one thing. Survival. Think about it, we are alive today because the core tenant of our existence hasn't been broken yet. We, as a species continue to survive. Different behaviors do nothing but aid or take a different path to maintaining this goal. Perhaps curiosity is nothing but an attempt to make our survival more efficient. Perhaps it's a luxury only suited for higher level organism. Who knows.

I think there's a great deal more going on. -Saying that Survival is the primary objective of Life is like saying that schools exist to make sure that enough students graduate to justify the yearly budget. It's a circular argument; if a school is successful, then it will justify its budget and thus every positive action the school took can be argued as having had the singular goal of continued survival. The idea of sharing and exploring knowledge needn't ever enter into the matter for the equation to balance and make sense.

And yet, we know that schools are more than just infernal continuance machines. They exist as a means of teaching growing awarenesses.

I see evolution as a natural by-product rather than the objective.

-FL

Re:Evolution staring us in the face. SURVIVAL!

[DigiShaman]

I see evolution as a natural by-product rather than the objective.

Of course, I agree. What I mean is that evolution is the result of remaining species that have survived long enough to procreate and continue the cycle of life. Specialization may simply happen on its own because of evolution.

Of course it can.

[MindlessAutomata]

Of course curiosity can be programmed. What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts? Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.

Of course, some people will handwave with "the soul" or silly objections by Searle...

Re:Of course it can.

[Fantastic Lad]

Of course curiosity can be programmed. What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts? Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.

~waves hand~ Speak for yourself, Mister Roboto. ~/waves hand~

But seriously, this is a really fascinating question. Souls aren't handed out like candy. You have to build them through main force; by actively choosing to be aware from moment to moment. What I am finding to be the biggest challenge in that requires the supreme effort of recognizing one's own automatic nature and cleaning the gunk out of it.

Every time some subject comes up in conversation which makes me twitch or sweat or want to pull away, THAT indicates a piece of gunk. Each time I want to fall back and use a comfortable and proven behavior routine to deal with a given moment, THAT indicates a piece of gunk.

After one does enough work, you begin to see very clearly just how messy and automatic the people around you are. -These days, I find I am constantly aware of people's programs and little acts, why they work and what they are designed to do, and where people get stuck running those silly programs over and over day after day, year after year without ever stopping to ask, "What is the real me under this?". The soul is that part of us which is capable of recognizing the automatic nature of the brain and body and stepping in through an application of Will to interrupt the code execution.

It's difficult and the ego doesn't like it at all; Any suggestion that one is a robot is usually met with disgust and fear, if the accusation is even understood in the first place. The Ego is, I think, a foreign installment designed exactly to keep us from performing that self-examination. With the Ego in place and strong, there is no hope of breaking out of the cage of automatic behavior.

Like I said, a fascinating topic.

-FL

Re:Of course it can.

[Fantastic Lad]

Could this, perhaps, also be a little program running in your mind.

Sure. But how can one tell. . ?

The best I've been able to come up with is this. . .

-When the Ego engages or is heavily invested, I'm probably dealing with programming.
-When Feeding engages, it's the same thing. (Energetic Feeding includes both bullying as well as actions taken to gain approval or attention.)

These things share a certain feeling which, over time, becomes recognizable within oneself. As far as I can determine, much of my behavior comes from one of these two places, largely connected to the automatic state of my being. Unless one is coming from a very pure place of altruism, the only way to not engage one of those two states, it seems to me, is to sit very still and do nothing.

Though, there is one other force. . .

Creativity. -This one is interesting; it comes from within and you act on an artistic impulse because it feels good, and this makes it selfish of course, however, it is not linked to taking away from others; there is no bullying or showing off involved, (until the output is shared.) This might be the closest that raw humans ever come to non-robotic behavior. Though the argument can be made that we are simply being played like instruments via manipulated feelings for the specific end of producing elements designed to affect and control society. Like directing certain of the cattle to behave in order to direct the entire herd.

Basically, after going around and around with this stuff, the best I've been able to come up with is that we can only observe our behavior and after a great deal of work, lean towards pure altruism without the hope of ever fully getting there. Of course, some of the really advanced spiritual practitioners are able to ascend to such a level, but grubs like me can do little more than watch and lean.

The soul, I think, builds up from repeated attempts to see and understand, to feel from other people's perspectives, to push into awareness in all the ways a soul can.

-FL

Re:Of course it can.

[MindlessAutomata]

Yeah, but your talk of "Ego" and "the soul" is all gobbledygook.

Re:Of course it can.

[Yhippa]

This is interesting. I know this is probably way out of my scope but it's fascinating when you realize you're seeing someone's "program."

Re:Of course it can.

[Fantastic Lad]

Yeah, but your talk of "Ego" and "the soul" is all gobbledygook.

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that YOUR computer was coded by a genius or that your hardware wasn't found in a box of rejects from the late 80's. You'll have to forgive your maker if you can't keep up.

As for the soul. . . Well, that's not a winnable debate one way or the other, so your call of 'gobbledygook' is no more or less useful.

That being said, did you feel a stab of irritation upon completing the first sentence? The ego would have been the item making that particular sensation. Sorry. It was just a demonstration. No harm intended. I'm sure your wetware is fine.

-FL

Re:Of course it can.

[ebuck]

Odd that we detest the idea of being likened to man made creations (robots) when we are man made creations (e.g. we have parents). I guess we are very aware of the failings of robots, or much more likely, we are very proud of ourselves (and no robot can encapsulate our "us-ness", no matter how good the copy). This helps explain why we fear clones, clones are purported to be perfect copies (which they cannot be), an a perfect copy must include a copy of our "us-ness".

Re:Of course it can.

[misexistentialist]

Clean out all the "gunk," and there is nothing left. Behold, your soul !

Re:Of course it can.

[Fantastic Lad]

let me be the first to say... what the hell are you talking about?

First of all, your question is a lie. You don't actually want to know what I'm talking about. Here's what I see:

You recognized a pattern which is out of keeping with the "official" mode of thinking, and the automatic program you come pre-installed with kicked into play. Some variant of herd-motivated ridicule.

When the program finished running, you felt better about yourself; secure in your membership in the herd. That warm, fuzzy hit of feeling of belonging is the reward for running the program. The program itself is a very simple, but otherwise clever little trap for those ensnared by it. It pushes those it is run against to stop thinking outside the official parameters while at the same time blocking awareness of whatever topic of thought or discussion first activated the program.

In order to implant the program, the subject needs to have been tormented as a child so that it A) recognizes and understands the dynamics of the social pecking order, and B) has had its self-confidence crushed through repeated attacks so that it remains dependent upon the herd for all of its personal validation and love.

This program is layer one; among the first and most basic hurdles which must be cleared in order to have even the smallest hope of waking up. Very, very few people are able to this. Until then, you are a robot, plain and simple.

That's what I'm talking about.

Aren't you glad you asked? ;)

And don't worry. We all go through this. I'm not trying to hurt you.

-FL

Re:Of course it can.

[Fantastic Lad]

Here's what I see: A desire to assert some sort of intellectual superiority by reducing others to automata, thereby justifying your perceived self worth as a "free thinker," when in reality it could be effectively argued that you're simply falling back on your own "automatic program" of taking each response != "validation" and categorizing it as an "automatic program," which, ironically, would both validate your claim AND demonstrate its irrelevance so long as each program is not identical, which appears to be the case.

I'm not a free thinker. Nobody is. And you're right; the ego is always eager to assert dominance. As much as I try to put it aside, it remains a force to be reckoned with. But it is a sliding scale; at the one extreme, a person can become a slave to the Ego, flying into a rage when challenged, while on the other hand s/he can laugh at and make an effort to disengage from the emotional spurts offered by the Ego thus minimizing its control. I once had it described to me thusly; think of the Ego as a bowling ball which is sitting in the middle of the lane. If you pretend it isn't there, it will screw up all your carefully intended strikes. If by contrast you recognize its presence and that it is not going away, you can try to bowl around it. -Not the best metaphor but workable.

The != "validation", as you put it, in this case was in fact a classic ridicule evasion/attack, a type which is well understood. As such, it seems to me entirely reasonable, unless you can add something I am not aware of, to think of it as exactly that.

We are all affected by our internal programming, but valid observation remains entirely possible. Accuracy is improved when multiple people work to bowl around their egos and point out errors and ego-traps and spot programs running in each other.

So what do you think? Was the poster making a joke for some other reason than the one I suggested?

-FL

Twilight

[serps]

This article reminds me of the short story Twilight by John W. Campbell. I read it when I was a kid and it left a lasting impression that, should humans lose their curiosity, the striving for knowledge might yet continue.

And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...

Re:Twilight

[mcgrew]

And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...

Relax, the education system was as screwed up when I went to school in the '60s as it was when my kids went to school in the '90s. It hasn't gotten any better, but it hasn't gotten worse, either.

Self referential

[Max Littlemore]

If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny.

From TFA:

How does the compression progress drive explain humor? Some subjective observers who read a given joke for the first time may think it is funny. Why? As the eyes are sequentially scanning the text the brain receives a complex visual input stream. The latter is subjectively partially compressible as it relates to the observer's previous knowledge about letters and words. That is, given the reader's current knowledge and current compressor, the raw data can be encoded by fewer bits than required to store random data of the same size. The punch line at the end, however, is unexpected. Initially this failed expectation results in sub-optimal data compression -- storage of expected events does not cost anything, but deviations from predictions require extra bits to encode them. The compressor, however, does not stay the same forever. Within a short time interval, its learning algorithm improves its performance on the data seen so far, by discovering the non-random, non-arbitrary and therefore compressible pattern relating the punch line to previous text and previous knowledge of the reader. This saves a few bits of storage. The number of saved bits (or a similar measure of learning progress) becomes the observer's intrinsic reward, possibly strong enough to motivate him to read on in search for more reward through additional yet unknown patterns. The recent joke, however, will never be novel or funny again.

I fear that no joke will ever be novel or funny again.

Re:Self referential

[NexusJedi]

The recent joke, however, will never be novel or funny again.

This fails to explain running gags. Even regular jokes are, in fact, often funny again (even if no longer novel).

Hubris

[shadowbearer]

'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.'

  Build a what?

  I suspect it's already retirement time. No offense.

SB

Re:Hubris

[ebuck]

All scientists retire in one sense of the word or another. Wouldn't an optimal scientist just cut out off of the intermediate experimentation stuff and immediately retire? I think this guy's taking an easy problem he's already solved and building it up to land a tasty stream of grants.

pseudo-code

[Korbeau]

10: CALL Monolith
20: PRAISE Monolith
30: GOTO 50
40: Understand Monolith
50: Satiated = CALL Curiosity
60: IF Satiated > Infinity GOTO 40
70: ELSE GOTO 50

Sure.

[fahrbot-bot]

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's third law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl.

Re:Sure.

[Terrasque]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl.

Incidentally, so is line noise.

Re:Sure.

[fahrbot-bot]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl.

Incidentally, so is line noise.

I think there's a module on CPAN to handle that...

I read that a bit wrong at first

[FalseModesty]

"his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked ..." Woo hoo! The Robotic Cognitive Professor worked! Oh, wait...

All well and good but what about a soul?

[BlueCoder]

Our greatest gift to god will be creating a mind that can believe in him.

Why is it that AI research is always mislead by it's name? Namely they are
too focused on the intelligence aspect of a programmed mind that they
completely fail to recognize it's subjective emotions and motivation that they
should be focusing on.

What is a soul? It's that part of a mind that is able to make a choice. It's
the part of the mind that isn't logical. It's the part of the mind that can
judge something as good and bad. It's has beliefs. It can be informed by
reasoning but it can still choose mysticism over reason. It wants and it
can choose. Behind every mind there is motivation. Sure it's still a
program but it's the one that matters.

Just because you can give an ant mind super intelligence doesn't make it any
less of an ant. It understands more but it is still an ant and wants what
ants want. The reverse of this is a complex soul that can't make sense
of the world around him; we tend to call this autism. Maybe the former is
autism as well.

Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they
can actually drive a sane person to insanity. Therefore we should also be
able to drive an artificial mind to insanity.

It is not enough to recognize beauty; you have to feel it, you have know and
believe that it is good and right.

Re:All well and good but what about a soul?

[HeckRuler]

You know, I had a revelation the other day. I used to scoff at your type. The ones that believed in the holy trinity of the cognitive; the brain, the mind, and the soul. And for years I would scoff at your ideas and say that it's simply all the brain, and that everything else doesn't really exist. Then I thought about the chinese room a bit. Before I would say that, of course the man doesn't know chinese, but the book does.

And then it hit me. It's not the book, nor the words, nor the ink on the page, but the pattern of the book that understands chinese. And the parallel here is that the human brain is just meat that holds a pattern, a configuration, a setting of synapses, chemicals, and whatnot. The mind is not the brain, the brain is not the mind, but the mind exists within the brain.

Similarly, part of that pattern is the bit that gives us our conscious/gutcheck/insticts/morals/etc. which makes up the soul. It's not that these things don't exist, but that they've been improperly defined.


But anyway, scoff scoffity scoff, we've got three laws that should be able to handle that issue.

Re:All well and good but what about a soul?

[mcgrew]

What is a soul?

The Soul of a New Machine

Main Entry: soul
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English swol; akin to Old High German sula soul
Date: before 12th century
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
6 : person
7 : personification
8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b : negritude c : soul music d : soul food e : soul brother

Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they can actually drive a sane person to insanity.

I don't think you'll find any psychologists who agree with that, unless you think Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is insanity. Insanity is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Yes, give a person the right drug and they will become temporarily insane, but it is an artificial insanity.

Guys

[COFFEESLEEP]

I've devised an algorithm that tells me with 100% certainty that this guy's ego is way too far up his ass.

Re:Guys

[Jeremi]

I've devised an algorithm that tells me with 100% certainty that this guy's ego is way too far up his ass.

Random nobody spends 45 seconds skimming an article on the Internet, feels qualified to throw insults. Details at 11.

Doobie

[Quiet_Desperation]

And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program."

After which he took another long drag on his joint and said, "It's like our whole universe is inside a single election in a larger universe, you dig? Hey, pass those corn chips over, dude! Now where was I? What? Ah, never mind. Put on Conan. It's his last show."

What's that like? I'm curious.

[syousef]

I'm an AI researcher, though not precisely in this area

What's that like? I'm curious.

Re:What's that like? I'm curious.

[Trepidity]

Depends greatly on what you research. Unfortunately, the vast majority isn't as glamorous as you might imagine. I work in a pretty interesting area (an academic area with connections to videogame AI and game design), and this sort of creativity / discovery-systems / curiosity / art / etc. research is interesting too. But the vast majority is more pedestrian. Sure, there's interesting applications: computer vision, robotics, planning, data mining, bioinformatics, etc. But 90% of the work that comes out is incrementalist stuff; relatively boring proofs of some fact, or new algorithm that's 7% faster in some important special case (I suppose that's true of a lot of scientific fields, though).

It goes back and forth in waves, though. It seems that there will be waves of pretty exciting AI research, then a backlash as some of it goes over the top into sci-fi Singularity Is Nigh sort of AI, then things swing all the way to the other direction into AI as a really narrow field that's basically applied statistics, control theory, symbolic logic, and planning, and the only stuff that can get published is Rigorous stuff with Proofs (sort of a defensive reaction by people worried about being branded kooks). Then after a few years of that everyone realizes that 5000 more proofs in some super-narrow area aren't getting us anywhere because the field is stagnant with no direction, and people start doing more speculative applications and proposing new problems again. Then repeat.

It's somewhat unfortunate on the whole that there's such a big gap between what you might call "layperson AI" and "academic AI". The layperson AI (the singularity crowd, etc.) are excited about stuff, and have interesting goals, etc., but often do stuff that verges more on the sci-fi than the scientific. But academic AI is so scared of being them that it consciously tries at times to be super-boring so nobody mistakes them for Hans Moravec.

Re:What's that like? I'm curious.

[RandCraw]

> It goes back and forth in waves, though.

Before about 1985, I would have agreed. Since then research AI has devolved into developing a subset of NP-hard algorithms, which seem to either recognize or anticipate patterns (machine learning) or use feedback toward behaving adaptively. Good Old Fashioned AI (GOFAI or 'strong AI') passed away peacefully some 25 years ago, and given the ephemeral timeline of modern academic funding ('publish ASAP or perish'), that's unlikely to change any time soon.

On the other hand, the rising demand for espionage/surveillance tools and no-person-in-the-loop warfare systems may breathe life back into GOFAI. In the US's never ending quest to make warfare ever more painless for the voters, it's likely that DARPA will soon throw big money at building fleets of killer robots.

So the good news is, maybe 'strong AI' isn't dead. The bad news is, 'strong' has an ominous new meaning.

Theorists vs. Practitioners, attitudes towards CS

[jonaskoelker]

I guess it's just an "implementation issue". Ah, the chorus of the pure theorist...

Here's a thought (I haven't decided whether I agree with it):

Would it make sense to divide the work of creating AI into the Getting Ideas part and the Turning Ideas Into Code part? The idea being that you can let people who are good at one part do that part, and let people who are good at the other do the other part. (That goes back to Adam Smith, division of labour.)

Suppose a physicist establishes a theory about the reflection of light which (among other things) can be used to make more efficient solar cells. Yet he doesn't make any solar cells. Would he be met with the same attitude? Is that "just an implementation issue" too?

Or say an astronomer discovers a new celestial object. Do people poo-poo him because he hasn't gone there? :P (Okay, this one is stretching it...)

I'm not saying your attitude is wrong. I'm wondering, and I hope some of you smart slashdotters can help me figure it out, why computer science researchers get met with the "You haven't turned it into a prototype (or product!) yet, come back when you have."

I think it's because what CS research creates is very close to what Software Engineers (/programmers) create: algorithms. Moreover, the algorithms created by research always solve a particular problem, because that's what algorithms do. In some sense, all CS research is applied, but since it's still research it's not applied enough---it's not a product.

Contrast that with what most scientific fields do: "prove" declarative claims about how the world works (quantum mechanics, planetary motion, natural selection, thermoelectric effect, ...). An algorithm relates to a declarative claim (about its correctness), but it has an imperative "(you can) Do this: ... (and only this)" bit attached to it that most other fields don't have.

I think I can find an exception in the field of medicine---much medical research is into the safety and effectiveness of "algorithms" for treating particular diseases (input chemical X). But they test finished "implementations"---you can't really figure out what chemical X does without inputting it and seeing what happens. Not yet, anyways---humans are big and complex, and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a good, complete model of how they work; that's unlike CS, where we can read a program and reason about what it does without running it.

I think it's the similarity between research output and engineering output that makes many people want researchers to do the engineers' job.

Would it really be a good thing if they did?

(That's not to say we should have a low bar for evidence for "truth", such as correctness or (for more fuzzy domains) effectiveness and usefulness.)

Let's program our computers to date girls.

[PDX]

Let's program our computers to date girls. This explains why there are so many virgins on slashdot. Sometimes a little investigation can be a good thing.

Re:Let's program our computers to date girls.

[mcgrew]

Let's program our computers to date girls.

Should we use carbon dating, or some other method?

Re:Physics of computing 3d universe in 7+

[ras1600]

The theory is ... cute at best, but unworkable.

Over the eons simple 2d images and more recently 3d images & holograms have been accepted as reasonable representations. Would a complete 3 dimensional representation be acceptable ?

Would not leveraging the 7+ additional string/M-theory folded dimensions not be within our universe? Would suggest that were are already doing so with 1984+ quantum teleportation, susequent quantum cryptography, etc ...

Presume if not computing digitally with bits and vast series of same but instead NKS cellular automata relations there, that far less would required to represent all that "exists" and is experienced, known & interacted with in the our 3 extant dimensions.

As there would in essence be no distance between lattice of the subset of points leveraged to represent our perceived universe across the other dimensions Wolfram-Alpha-esk computation there should be vastly faster than that experienced in the slower paced space time in our lesser reality.

If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny

What comes next?

[caywen]

Maybe next they should study how to program bi-curiosity. God knows most software is pretty gay these days, and I'd like to know why.

Re:What comes next?

[mcgrew]

God knows most software is pretty gay these days

Examples?

Re:Theorists vs. Practitioners, attitudes towards

[Trepidity]

Part of it is that CS theory tends to prove things that, while mathematically true, in practice often don't matter. For example, it's a running joke in AI that everything interesting is NP-complete. So we don't care about NP-completeness. What we want to avoid is AI-completeness: problems that, if you could solve them, would imply that you had Full Human-Level Intelligence. We want to solve bits of intelligence without having to solve all of it, but if it's NP-complete, who cares, because everything is. In fact, if you can reduce an AI problem to SAT, everyone's happen, because SAT is famously fast to solve (it's NP-complete, but almost always fast in practice).

Re:Theorists vs. Practitioners, attitudes towards

[Trepidity]

Hah, that's "everyone's happy", of course.

Incidentally, this was the work that started the "reduce to SAT, because it's NP-complete and, btw, fast" trend.

If a self-aware AI thought hard enough

[pinkushun]

'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...'

... and that curiosity overlapped, like so many ill and broken human brains, into the realm of murder... Skynet!

Wrong Perspective

[CxDoo]

It is not curiosity that is hard to achieve - brute forcing is equivalent to curiosity upped to 11. It is filtration of resulting data that is hard.

And it is hard not only because there is so much that can be said about anything, but because what is relevant depends on what is being looked for. Which is a bit circular, like in self referential.

In other words, what is the metric for curiosity?

How curiosity works:

[Hurricane78]

I once extensively thought about that subject. The point of curiosity. How it works.

We humans have an internal model of reality. In fact it’s the only reality that we have. Since we can’t prove the existence of anything outside our minds.
This model is a set of associations. Which, just as the universe, are defined in a relative way.
This means, that we can’t handle anything that is not related to something else in some way. Even if it’s just a basic feeling.

But since we start out with nothing, and must be able to handle things, to survive, we have a built-in trigger. Whenever we find something that we can’t handle, we start trying to fit it into our model. Therefore we play with it, directed to whatever tiny feeling seems remind us of something. If there is none, there also is no real method in our playing. Just like with games. (Which are in fact training for such situations.)

We then either find a way that it fits... or we start to ignore it, as if it would not exist. Because else, our mind — unable to handle reality anymore — would completely break down. (Which never happens, because there is always schizophrenia — living in a imaginary world — as a last resort to protect you.)

I think if we implement it this way, it’s actually not that hard to simulate curiosity.
Create a mind that stores things in associations, and has a inner model, that it uses to do normal things a life form would do (collect and transform resources, grow/expand and reproduce, etc).
And then just build routine that tries to uphold a reality where everything fits and makes sense.
Meaning that things that can’t be associated, will be manipulated, until they are, or until a “I give up” neuron gets past its firing point (where that thing would be ignored).
Of course it’s easier when the mind has the ability to internally simulate never seen combinations of things, based on the known associations. (Imagination.) Because then that mind could make up fantasy worlds (that make sense in the inner model) about those things (= religion), and handle them anyway. (Or become schizophrenic. ^^)

And there you’d have it: Curiosity. (Which could even kill the simulated cat. ;)

Non-determinism.

[Burnhard]

I think Bell's theorem shows us that the Universe cannot be both local and deterministic. That being the case, he's on pretty shaky ground proposing in-principle deterministic computability, although he is not the first to do this. I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies. I like to think I'm mostly the former.

And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.

Re:Non-determinism.

[MindlessAutomata]

P-zombies are a ridiculous construct.

Re:Non-determinism.

[Burnhard]

P-zombies are a ridiculous construct.

No more ridiculous than the idea that Consciousness is reducible to basic, known, physical laws.

Re:Non-determinism.

[DynaSoar]

I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies. I like to think I'm mostly the former.

That's precisely what all you zombies (ie. everyone other than myself) are programmed to say. Although some of you do produce novel responses occasionally. The Penrose zombie presented his theory to the Karl Pribram zombie (my primary teaching machine) who asked "So what does this mean to psychology?" The Penrose zombie replied "How would I know? You're the psychologist." A strange thing to say because (a) the Penrose zombie didn't flinch from psychology in the 'zombies' issue (v 3 #1) of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and (2) the Pribram zombie was programmed as a neurologist, not a psychologist.

After receiving that JoCS issue I had my fill of speculative philosophy of science in place of real science and wrote to ask them where I might obtain samples of zombies suitable for laboratory testing. Since I, as the sole non-zombie, would know the correct answer to be 'everywhere; any of us', their programming correctly perceived my response as irony. Not having been programmed to respond to it (the zombie in TFA hadn't developed that idea yet), they didn't respond at all. As a result I canceled my subscription. They continued to produce that journal as if I were still taking it, again as a lack of complete programming.

The idea that complete computation can produce all the answers is not new. It is based on comprehensive algorithms rather than incomplete calculations resulting in "I don't know". It is because of this that such computations are called 'NP Complete'. It means that in order to complete the calculations, they have to be done as NP (Not Penrose).

Re:Non-determinism.

[Burnhard]

That's precisely what all you zombies (ie. everyone other than myself) are programmed to say.

People laugh at Descartes today, but he wasn't entirely wrong to point out the fundamentally internal nature of conscious experience. There is of course the other problem: Consciousness is not Supervenient on the Physical. But then, any thing that doesn't exist would, by definition, not be supervenient on the physical, unless of course to exist physically isn't the only way an entity can exist. Given that Science is the Philosophy and Study of the physical, it is no surprise to see that Science has to dismiss Consciousness as an illusion.

Re:Non-determinism.

[MindlessAutomata]

You're right, it's *magic*!

Re:Non-determinism.

[Burnhard]

I prefer the Kantian term transcendental.

Re:Non-determinism.

[DynaSoar]

That's precisely what all you zombies (ie. everyone other than myself) are programmed to say.

People laugh at Descartes today, but he wasn't entirely wrong to point out the fundamentally internal nature of conscious experience. There is of course the other problem: Consciousness is not Supervenient on the Physical. But then, any thing that doesn't exist would, by definition, not be supervenient on the physical, unless of course to exist physically isn't the only way an entity can exist. Given that Science is the Philosophy and Study of the physical, it is no surprise to see that Science has to dismiss Consciousness as an illusion.

You're referring to Cartesian dualism, the separation of body/brain and "mind". That's from his public writings and is widely accepted as his genuine opinion on the subject. It wasn't. In his diary he wrote that he created the idea of dualism to present so that the church would see him as promoting the idea that there was a place in his theory for the soul. He specifically wanted to avoid the fate of such as Bruno and Galileo. I don't recall the specific reference for this, but it was shown to me by Karl Pribram. He credits it as the source he drew from when he developed his saying "Brain is a noun. Mind is a verb. Mind is what brain does."

Re:Non-determinism.

[ImprovOmega]

You're right, it's *magic*!

Or perhaps more notably, inherently incomprehensible because we cannot observe/test/measure/study consciousness without using consciousness and that is at once limiting and corrupting of our view of it. Brains we can understand, but consciousness is somehow a part of the human experience but not of many (perhaps all) forms of lower life - what makes an organism self-aware? Perhaps it is not a question for science at all.

That doesn't mean that science shouldn't try, but I suggest that it *may* be beyond science's ability.

Re:Non-determinism.

[Burnhard]

No, not dualism, just his insight that the only direct experience you can have of Consciousness is your own. I'm not a dualist as such (Chalmer's is, but only insofar as he believes there are properties that exist over and above purely Physical properties). I have a real problem with Functionalism, at least with our current mechanical and computational paradigms being able to generate Consciousness. Intuitively, I would say there is something missing in our understanding of the world around us - Penrose's "missing ingredient". But although Penrose thought that missing ingredient some physical property, it's not obvious how it can be. Hence, in a way I suppose, we end up with a kind-of property dualism.

try it

[StripedCow]

And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.

He should try to do some actual computational physics/chemistry. The amount of processor power you need to simulate only tiny structures is so enormous that he'd be thrown back to reality really quickly.

skynet curious?

[Caue]

skynet: would humans would survive a nuclear winter? let's find out.

Oh, no...

[hesaigo999ca]

> the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program
Here come the Matrix analogies for the rest of the posts here on end....!

This goes to show

[maroberts]

Any problem is solvable given an infinite number of (live) cats

random snippet

[Daimanta]

if ( object.stateIsPredictable() )
        then ( object.process();)
        else ( cout "Interesting!" )

Re:Theorists vs. Practitioners, attitudes towards

[DriedClexler]

It's not so much the lack of code but the

or even non-vague pseudocode

And it's not so much the "where's your finished product?" but "um, so what *is* the algorithm?"

Not informative

[wurp]

I can write a program that prints itself. I can write program A that prints itself, plus does other stuff. The program it prints (B) can also print itself, plus do other stuff (since B is the same as A). The program contains the code to print itself, plus the code to do other stuff, with no problem.

Simulating the universe from within itself is quite possible. Obviously, some bits within the simulation represent more than the same number of bits in the real universe, but fortunately, lossless compression is possible.

Re:Not informative

[HateBreeder]

err, no...

your analogy is so bad.

i don't have the will to get into this.

just have a long think... and figure out if a program printing itself is the same as a program simulating itself.

Re:Not informative

[wurp]

I agree; it is not an analogy. It does demonstrate that your high level, hand-waving, english text argument that "obviously, it can't include itself, that's a feedback loop" proves nothing.

One could make the same high level english argument that obviously arithmetic is a complete, non-contradictory mathematical system, but Goedel's meticulous proof of the opposite trumps.

I still think I can make a program that includes a simulation of itself. When the program was asked for information about the sim-within-a-sim, it would just retrieve the equivalent data from the top level sim.

Actually, that might be a fun project...

Re:Not informative

[HateBreeder]

If it has a special case to deal with sim-inside-sim Then it would not be an exact simulation of the top level.

Re:Not informative

[wurp]

How so? Every line of code in the simulation is different from the bits it represents in the original. As long as I can ask it "what's happening in this part of the universe" for any part of the universe, and have it churn to figure out what happens (happened) next, it's a simulation.

That's like saying if I figure out how to simulate electric force and it requires an if-then, it's not really a simulation.

The reactive mind

[tepples]

Every time some subject comes up in conversation which makes me twitch or sweat or want to pull away, THAT indicates a piece of gunk.

This piece of gunk is called an "engram", and it triggers post-traumatic stress. Both psychiatry and Dianetics have their own versions of a process called abreaction therapy to "play back" these engrams in such a way as to reduce the influence that they have on the mind.

The Ego is, I think, a foreign installment designed exactly to keep us from performing that self-examination. With the Ego in place and strong, there is no hope of breaking out of the cage of automatic behavior.

Scientologists would say the same about the reactive mind.

Re:The reactive mind

[Fantastic Lad]

Scientologists would say the same about the reactive mind.

Scientology is one of the premier examples of spiritual exploration gone horribly awry, co-opted by the very forces which seek to keep people locked down. Their trick is to take a bunch of good ideas and quietly interweave them with creeped-out insanity.

The New Age bookstores are filled to brimming with fail-safe nets designed to catch people who fall out of the matrix.

There IS a path, but it takes a lot of comparative study, source-checking and in the end, rolling up your pant leggings and getting out there yourself to figure out who the heck is on first.

-FL

Re:The reactive mind

[BJ_Covert_Action]

There's no path to information that doesn't require a machete and a lot of gumption.

duality

[eexaa]

If computer perceives things as "exciting" and is curious about them, it will necessarily perceive other things that are "boring" and will have no interest in them, probably refusing to do them as non-necessary, and generally moaning.

Also, guess what category is "running your Windows".

What is curiosity

[wye43]

I believe its not that mystical or complex. Its a simple desire to find out more about a phenomenon that has already influenced us. We already had some inputs in our brain about it, but we don't fully understand it. Its just the desire to rationalize, to "complete the circle". Its a very basic mind process. It can be simulated extremely easy in my opinion.

Short version of his talk, 10 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a short version of his incredible talk, only 10 minutes:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ipomu0MLFaI

Ten minutes after death

[mcgrew]

"Wow, man, that was fucking AWESOME! Plug me into that thing again, will you?"

Chaos and Circles

[Cassander]

At the atomic level there's a lot of randomness.

Can we be sure? What seems random may not in fact be truly random. The flip of a coin is considered random, but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.

Exactly. As a poetic friend of mine puts it, "There's no such thing as random, even dice have a past."

Rather than being random it could be that it's just more complex than we know, or that we can't determine the variables with enough accuracy. What is the exact value of PI?

The exact value of pi is actually that irrational number that people like to waste supercomputer time on calculating to millions of decimal places, but a calculation of pi to such extreme precision is useless for any practical purpose. You're on the right track but you're asking the wrong question. The catch is that circles are purely a mathematical abstraction, not a real thing. In the real physical world, circles don't exist. The closest we could come is a bajillion-sided polygon where each side is one Planck Unit long.

Re:Chaos and Circles

[mcgrew]

My point about PI was that there are some things that can't be determined with exact precision. "It's turtles all the way down".

Halting Problem and Free Will

[ShakaUVM]

>>You can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.

What if the universe was made up by nothing but an (intelligent) bowling ball traveling through otherwise empty space? It's pretty easy to figure out where you'll be in 10 years.

That said, the whole computability argument is bunk, since the Halting Problem tells us that there are some things that are just not computable. If we have a universe consisting of nothing but a pool table and some (intelligent) billiard balls, we can predict the future to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. But if these same billiard balls are programmed to never go where they're supposed to go, then the result is indeterminate, as in the halting program.

This is actually the reason why I believe in Free Will. Determinism is provably impossible.

A limited robot scientist already exists

[Sinical]

There's a robotic scientist called ADAM that investigates yeast genetics (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dcswww/Research/bio/robotsci/). There was a pretty cool paper in Computer a few months ago. The robot actively tried to devise new theories and produce experiments (it's hooked up to a bunch of yeast-genetics-investigatory stuff) to investigate those theories. As I remember, most of the theories turned out to be true and were pretty novel (function of various genes). The researchers double checked several (or all?) of them.

Re:He's gonna build the Infinite Perspective Vorte

[Gromgull]

Then he should perhaps take a trip inside himself. This article and his webpage is full of self-self-congratulatory bullshit.