= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
No, but it does mean that if you want to argue that humans exist you must provide strong positive evidence, perhaps telling us an address where we can meet a real live human ;)
I could stand to meet a real-life human. I've heard they exist, but I've had such a hard time finding one!
The basic theistic hypothesis is a description of an omnipotent, omniscient being; together with the probable aims and suspected intentions of such a being. The laws of physics would then derive from this.
"Omnipotent", "omniscient", and "being" are packing a whole shit-ton of complexity, especially "being". They're definitely packing more than a model of particle physics, since we know that all known "beings" are implemented on top of particle physics.
I don't think mind designs are dependent on their underlying physics. The physics is a substrate, and as long as it provides general computation, intelligence would be achievable in a configuration of that physics. The specifics of those designs may depend on how those worlds function, like how jellyfish-like minds may be different from bird-like minds, but not the common elements of induction, analysis of inputs, and selection of outputs. That would mean the simplest a priori mind would have to be computed by the simplest provision of general computation, however. An infinitely divine Turing Machine, if you will.
That doesn't mean a mind is more basic than physics, though. That's an entirely separate issue. I haven't ever seen a coherent model of God in the first place, so I couldn't begin to judge the complexity of its unproposed existence. If God is a mind, then what substrate does it rest on?
LessWrong has now descended to actually arguing over the Kolmogorov complexity of the Christian God, as if this was a serious question.
Well, there is a lot of motivated cognition on that topic (relevant disclaimer, I'm an atheist in the conventional sense of the word) and it seems deceptively straight forward to answer (mostly by KC-dabblers), but it is in fact anything but. The non-triviality arises from technical considerations, not some philosophical obscurantism.
This may be the wrong comment chain to get into it, and your grandstanding doesn't exactly signal an immediate willingness to engage in medias res, so I won't elaborate for the moment (unless you want me to).
The non-triviality arises from technical considerations
The laws of physics as we know them are very simple, and we believe that they may actually be even simpler. Meanwhile, a mind existing outside of physics is somehow a more consistent and simple explanation than humans having hardware in the brain that promotes hypotheses involving human-like agents behind everything, which explains away every religion ever? Minds are not simpler than physics. This is not a technical controversy.
In response to
Open thread, Aug. 17 - Aug. 23, 2015
I especially like the question "Is it ethical to steal truffle mushrooms and champagne to feed your family?" That's an intuitive concept fairly voiced. Calculating the damage to the trolley is somewhat ridiculous, however.
In response to
comment
by
on
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
de facto you are not
If you're claiming de facto, I would like to see some evidence :-P
In response to
comment
by
on
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
I believe in this instance he was reasoning alethically. De facto you are not necessarily correct.
In response to
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer...
Can..? Not "does"?
Is there any actual data (anyone has links to the laboratory tests or, at least, the court filing)? Press releases do not count.
In response to
comment
by
on
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
I'm not claiming this is conclusive evidence of danger; I'm just concerned.
In response to
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
Here is a reply from soylent.com
https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379-California-Proposition-65
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
Thanks. I only saw this press release and I was concerned that there might be danger.
Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels
Edit: Soylent's Reply, provided by Trevor_Blake
OAKLAND, Calif., Aug. 13, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As You Sow, a non-profit environmental-health watchdog, today filed a notice of intent to bring legal action against Soylent, a "meal replacement" powder recently featured in New York Times and Forbes stories reporting that workers in Silicon Valley are drinking their meals, eliminating the need to eat food. The 60-day notice alleges violation of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act for failure to provide sufficient warning to consumers of lead and cadmium levels in the Soylent 1.5 product.
Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium. Two separate samples of Soylent 1.5 were tested.
According to the Soylent website, Soylent 1.5 is "designed for use as a staple meal by all adults." The startup recently raised $20 million in funding led by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
"Nobody expects heavy metals in their meals," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow. "These heavy metals accumulate in the body over time and, since Soylent is marketed as a meal replacement, users may be chronically exposed to lead and cadmium concentrations that exceed California's safe harbor level (for reproductive harm). With stories about Silicon Valley coders sometimes eating three servings a day, this is of very high concern to the health of these tech workers."
Lead exposure is a significant public health issue and is associated with neurological impairment, such as learning disabilities and lower IQ, even at low levels. Chronic exposure to cadmium has been linked to kidney, liver, and bone damage in humans.
Since 1992, As You Sow has been a leading enforcer of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, with enforcement actions resulting in removal of lead from children's jewelry, formaldehyde from portable classrooms, and lead from baby powder.
In response to
Top 9+2 myths about AI risk
As an example of number 10, consider the Optimalverse. The friendliest death of self-determination I ever did see.
Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure of the point of this post, considering you're posting a reply to news articles on a forum filled with people who understand the mistakes they made in the first place. Perhaps as a repository of rebuttals to common misconceptions posited in the future?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
No, but I do downvote people who appear to be completely mind-killed.
Rather, identifying agents using algorithms with reasonable running time is a hard problem.
Also, consider the following relatively uncontroversial beliefs around here:
1) The universe has low Kolmogorov complexity.
2) An AGI is likely to be developed and when it does it'll take over the universe.
Now let's consider some implications of these beliefs:
3) An AGI has low Kolmogorov complexity since it can be specified as "run this low Kolmogorov complexity universe for a sufficiently long period of time".
Also the AGI to be successful is going to have to be good at detecting agents so it can dedicated sufficient resources to defeating/subverting them. Thus detecting agents must have low Kolmogorov complexity.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity. The laws of physics are simple, but the configurations of the universe that runs on it can be incredibly complex. The amount of information needed to specify the configuration of any single cubic centimeter of space is literally unfathomable to human minds. Running a simulation of the universe until intelligences develop inside of it is not the same as specifying those intelligences, or intelligence in general.
The convenience of some hypothetical property of intelligence does not act as a proof of that property. Please note that we are in a highly specific environment, where humans are the only sapients around, and animals are the only immediately recognizable agents. There are sci-fi stories about your "necessary" condition being exactly false; where humans do not recognize some intelligence because it is not structured in a way that humans are capable of recognizing.