Profile

Cover photo
171 followers|15,440 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
Super-Turing? Not so super, unfortunately.

http://www.examachine.net/blog/?p=85
Well, you know, none of it makes any sense. You can't have aleph-1 (which is supposedly 2^aleph-0). But you can't have something in between either. That's not how cardinal numbers work, an...
2
1
Peter Tankeev's profile photo
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
"If we really are machines and if-this is a big if-we learn the rules governing our brains, then in principle there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to replicate those rules in, say, silicon and steel. "
1
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
Ok, this does have a relation to philosophy :)

If physicalism is a metaphysical position...
Atheism originally shared:
 
3
Jim Williams's profile photoKenny Tse's profile photo
2 comments
 
Lmao this makes no sense
It's such a forced saying
Oh by the way television is a brainwash propaganda tool so turning it off is better ... 
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
I like Hawking's attitude against superstition.
Vassil Vidinsky originally shared:
 
Philosophy and Physics
Stephen Hawking gave a talk at Google's Zeitgeist Conference in which he declared philosophy to be dead. In December, a group of professors from America's top philosophy departments, including Rutgers, Columbia, Yale, and NYU, set out to establish the philosophy of cosmology as a new field of study within the philosophy of physics. Here is a really interesting [a must read] conversation with Tim Maudlin about "cosmology, multiple universes, the nature of time, the odds of extraterrestrial life, and why Stephen Hawking is wrong about philosophy". Even if you don't agree, its still worth thinking about it.

"Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes [...] Look, physics has definitely avoided what were traditionally considered to be foundational physical questions, but the reason for that goes back to the foundation of quantum mechanics. The problem is that quantum mechanics was developed as a mathematical tool [...] Bohr and Heisenberg tried to argue that asking for a clear physical theory [in QM] was something you shouldn't do anymore. That it was something outmoded. And they were wrong, Bohr and Heisenberg were wrong about that. [...] Well, the questions never went away. There were always people who were willing to ask them. [...] If you think that mathematical objects are not in time, and mathematical objects don't change -- which is perfectly true -- and then you're always using mathematical objects to describe the world, you could easily fall into the idea that the world itself doesn't change, because your representations of it don't."

+ScienceSunday #sciencesunday
.
1
1
Wolfgang Unger's profile photo
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
Organized superstition reeks into universities:

Hypercomputation and AI
http://www.producao.ufrj.br/hai2012/index.html
Tolerance of superstition is...? Unscientific :)
Hypercomputation and AI. A Special Symposium of the AISB/IACAP World Congress 2012 in honour of Alan Turing Birmingham, UK, 2-6 July 2012 [http://events.cs.bham.ac.uk/turing12/ or http://www.aisb.org....
1
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
2
Singularity Utopia's profile photo
 
This is a really good article even if I do say so myself :-)
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
171 people
Laurent Orseau's profile photo
DOBERMANN Dom's profile photo
The Smart and Assholes's profile photo
Tom Everitt's profile photo
Seyf Eddin's profile photo
Daniel Estrada's profile photo
Kimberly Holloway's profile photo
Michel Onfray's profile photo
Goran Starčević's profile photo

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
Sad news for the CS community
 
De Bruijn has died. To many familiar with the lambda calculus he is known as the inventor of de Bruijn indices, a particular nameless representation of lambda terms (i.e., a representation that does away with the names of variables, thus avoiding the issue of alpha-equivalence).
Of course, de Bruijn has done a lot more than that.

http://www.science.uva.nl/math/#item1329781416
1
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
Here you can sign in to your guest, member or subscriber accounts. Sign In · Forgot Password? Register for an IEEE Account · Browse > Conferences> Neural Networks (IJCNN), The 2 ... An insect br...
2
1
Goran Starčević's profile photo
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
‎1. Hypercomputation requires infinite amount of computation in finite time, or an infinite amount of information about the halting problem.
2. Both are impossible to realize in a physical system with finite volume and energy due to physical limits of computation
3. Therefore hypercomputation is impossible.
1
Wolfgang Unger's profile photo
 
Sure you are right, hypercomputation is physically impossible.
But not conceptually impossible ;-)
Likewise, almost all real numbers are not definable, but they are all conceptually possible (and pragmatically used).
I think hypercomputation might be related to the distinction of computable real numbers and the larger class of definable real numbers. Chaitin's number contains all information about the halting problem, it is definable but not computable.
I don't know whether all definable numbers are hypercomputable, but if not, and if there might also by hyperhypercomputable real numbers and so on, hypercomputation seems to be a very interesting concept.
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
1
Singularity Utopia's profile photo
 
Shrooms! It is really weird to have "geometric visual hallucinations"... I remember lying down in bed on LSD, closing my eyes and zooming over a fabulous geometric landscape where marvelous forms were being quickly created, in a morphing ebullience of creativity.
Add a comment...

AI Philosophy

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lucas probably "borrowed" it from Godel, because almost the same argument appears in Godel's unpublished philosophical essays. Same superstitious Platonism, etc., it's not a good argument, and it's most certainly false, but it might be instructional to examine what went so awfully wrong with it.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel's Theorem. In 1961, J.R. Lucas published “Minds, Machines and Gödel,” in which he formulated a controversial anti-mechanism argument. The argument claims tha...
1
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
171 people
Laurent Orseau's profile photo
DOBERMANN Dom's profile photo
The Smart and Assholes's profile photo
Tom Everitt's profile photo
Seyf Eddin's profile photo
Daniel Estrada's profile photo
Kimberly Holloway's profile photo
Michel Onfray's profile photo
Goran Starčević's profile photo
Story
Tagline
Philosophical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence
Introduction

A continuation of the long deceased comp.ai.philosophy in which logical people used to argue about the philosophical aspects of AI and philosophy of mind in general. Now that USENET has been shut down, long live ai-philosophy!

Our subjects are mainly, but not limited to, philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, computation, and language. We frequently find ourselves discussing aspects of philosophy of science, physics, mathematics. We also like to discuss different CS approaches to AI, ethical questions raised by AI, and other issues surrounding AI, including a bit of humor every now and then. As usual, people are passionate about their views about these fundamental subjects, and they will try hard to maintain their position. However, we do try to entertain a variety of views in this group, as long as they respect the scientific understanding of the world. Thus, if you are a creationist, this group is not for you! The founders of this group think that religion and in general mysticism are obsolete approaches to answer the significant questions about intelligence.

There are experts and inexperts in our group. Feyerabend once said that "the voice of the inexpert must be heard", and this is a place to voice your opinion. However, we cannot afford to tolerate trolls, spammers and flamewars. There has been, unfortunately, enough of that on USENET.

To join our group, please briefly tell us who you are and and your interest in the subject matter. You must supply enough information to convince the moderators that you are not a bot.

For inquiries, contact group founder Eray Ozkural (examachine-at-yahoo)

Image "Digital Phoenix" Copyright (C) 2008 by Ragip Akyildiz