EDIT: This post applies if deterministic computing is assumed, but not if nondeterministic computing is assumed. Solomonoff induction itself is agnostic in that regard. It doesn’t prescribe any particular paradigm of computation. ——— According to Solomonoff induction, the probability that solipsism is not true is zero. When applying Solomonoff induction,...
It is obviously true that "🟩", "greenness", and "activity in the visual cortex" are not identical things. For example, "greenness" is one word containing the letter "g", but not the letter "a", whereas "activity in the visual cortex" is five words containing the letter "a", but not the letter "g",...
1 - An artificial super-optimizer is likely to be developed soon. 2 - There is no known way of programming goals into an advanced optimizer, only outwardly observable behaviors of which we have no idea why they are being carried out or what motivates them. 3 - Most utility functions...
Solomonoff indiction doesn’t say anything about larger world models that contain the one-dimensional sequences that form the Solomonoff distribution. You appear to be saying that although the predicted sequence is always solipsistic from the point of view of the inductor, there can be a larger reality that contains that sequence, but that is an extra add-on that doesn’t appear anywhere in the original Solomonoff induction.
EDIT: This post applies if deterministic computing is assumed, but not if nondeterministic computing is assumed. Solomonoff induction itself is agnostic in that regard. It doesn’t prescribe any particular paradigm of computation.
———
According to Solomonoff induction, the probability that solipsism is not true is zero.
When applying Solomonoff induction, the entirety of the probability mass is distributed between world models which are one-dimensional sequences of states where every state has precisely one successor, the only possible exception being the last episode of the sequence, if the sequence ever ends (a condition which incidentally always makes the sequence more complex, making some kind of solipsistic afterlife quite probable).
Does this mean that we should modify Solomonoff induction, or could it perhaps - just perhaps - mean that there is no we after all?
Real men wear pink shirts that say "REAL MEN WEAR PINK".
Realer men wear pink shirts that don’t say anything.
Even realer men wear break the spell and wear what they actually like.
And the realest men of them all wear fedoras.
Interesting. What is the difference then between illusionism and eliminativism? Is eliminativism the even more "hard-core" position, whereby while illusionism only denies the existence of phenomenal properties, but not experience, eliminativism denies the existence of any experience altogether?
The referent of the label 2+2 is strictly identical to the referent of the label 4, but the labels 2+2 and 4 themselves are obviously not identical.
What would the statement of illusionism be then? That 🟩 is an illusion? Surely, yes, but digging deeper, you would get to some form of brain activity.
It is my impression that certain people think that illusionists deny that there is any 🟩 even in the map, and I have never heard any illusionist make that argument (maybe I just haven’t been paying enough attention though). The conversation seems to be getting stuck somewhere at the level of misunderstandings concerning labels and referents. The key insight that I am trying to communicate here is that when we say that A is B, we generally do not mean that A is strictly identical to B - which it clearly isn’t. This applies even when we say things like 2+2 = 4. Obviously, "2+2" and "4" are not even close to... (read more)
In that case, perhaps I could leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce what was there originally. Maybe it could be a good intelligence test for GPT-4...
More seriously, the reason I am reluctant to use the heart is that a heart shape is usually mentally associated with all kinds of things that are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, and could generate confusion. When writing the post, I chose the green square in a deliberate manner as the shape least likely to be distracting.
Of course, if most readers see a placeholder box, it will generate even more confusion, so... To edit or not to edit, that is the question.
Of course numbers exist. Here is one.
So I will just leave you with this: 🟩
I am beginning to think that I should not have used the quotes at all. I used them more or less as a highlighting tool, perhaps a different font style would accomplish this better. I might edit the post. Regarding existence, I am using the verb "to exist" as synonymous with the verb "to be". And it is my impression that illusionists generally do not deny that (not going to use any quotes this time) 🟩 is. If some here do, I would be interested in hearing their arguments.
It is obviously true that "🟩", "greenness", and "activity in the visual cortex" are not identical things. For example, "greenness" is one word containing the letter "g", but not the letter "a", whereas "activity in the visual cortex" is five words containing the letter "a", but not the letter "g", and "🟩" does not contain any letters at all.
Usually, when someone says that "🟩" is "greenness", they do not mean that the word "greenness", in a thought, spoken, or written form, is strictly identical to "🟩", or that "🟩" does not exist, and only "greenness" does. What they mean is that "greenness" is a useful label to describe "🟩". It is generally... (read 288 more words →)
1 - An artificial super-optimizer is likely to be developed soon.
3 - Most utility functions do not have optima with humans in them. Most utility functions do not have a term for humans at all.
4 - "Why haven’t we exterminated all mice/bugs/cows then?" draws quite a poor analogy. Firstly, we are not superoptimizers. Secondly, and more importantly, we care about living beings somewhat. The optimum of the utility function of the human civilization quite possibly does have mice/bugs/cows, perhaps... (read 314 more words →)
I suspect that the paradigm of computation one chooses plays an important role here. The paradigm of a deterministic Turing machine leads to what I described in the post - one dimensional sequences and guaranteed solipsism. The paradigm of a a nondeterministic Turing machine allows for multi-dimensional sequences. I will edit the post to reflect on this.