If No Consciousness Exists, By What Right Does The Universe?

Non-sense .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lyapunov function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_function

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is this function based on ; Write4U ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE). Read the abstract.

IMO, these established scientific theories only confirm my proposition that spacetime has a self-ordering quasi intelligent (mathematical) aspect to it. Consciousness is not required when there is a reliable alternate non-conscious function available. Occam's razor.

 

What is the foundation of these equations ? Where do they come from .

 

I gave you the wiki link that gives a condensed history of the Lyapunov function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_function

I hope that you will not dismiss Russian science as unreliable, for being Russian?

 

No .

 

So these equations are based on what exactly , observations or mathematical imagination ?

 

I have no clue.
This statement from the link caught my attention.

The Law of necessity and sufficiency is one of my favorites natural laws of logic.
If something is declared to meet the required properties, I tend to accept it as having been proven.

 

To your 2nd last statement . What are these required properties ?

 

Necessity and Sufficiency

Life is a demonstrated truth, therefore the necessary conditions for life had to exist prior to Abiogenesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#

 

Write4U enough .

 

Sufficiently clear?

 

No .

Mathematics in and of its self can not grow a physical 3D object .

 

This thread has the hallmarks of a kid closing his eyes and covering them with his hands and saying You can't see me - in reverse

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So you don't understand my last post #134 .

 

No, it doesn't mean that it understood the request. If you have a image of a chair, you can make small changes (to certain pixels or color values) that to a human wouldn't even be noticed but GPT3 could think it was a pigeon instead. It simply doesn't understand what a chair is.

GPT3 generates output one token at a time which is this "best guess" that you are talking about. It doesn't consider complete solutions, only what token is best suited to come next. Only reason why it kind of works is that the database is so very huge (as you said, basically the entire internet to work out what token should come next). A token may not be a single word, it might be a couple of words together, but nowhere near what is required for an actual understanding. It is blind to was before and only considers the weights attached to what should come next.

Maybe close to insect, but also completely different from a brain, so comparing it to another brain might be the wrong comparison to make. It's its own thing. We should compare one AI to another, not to brains.

I encourage you to look into the limits of GPT3, it is even questionable if it can be seen as general artificial intelligence.

Is GPT-3 OverHyped?

 

Maybe that is consciousness? Maybe that is what it is to exist? I'm not saying that the forms or configurations are pondering about it.

Does consciousness require that? Or do pondering about oneself require that? I'm not talking about thoughts, or even the knowledge that one exists, I'm talking only about the qualia of existence at this level. That existence itself has qualia.

Would they need any storage? The holographic theory of the universe states that it exists in a plane which is projected, that plane would be the storage medium. The event horizon of a black hole seem to store every event that has passed it (which is the solution to the information vanishing paradox). Everything is organized in the universe, either by gravity or by other forces. There is nothing that isn't organized in some way, we have very large structures between galaxies. Information is constantly being sent with every event happening and it is being sent through the vastness of space. Though through incredible time distances. That doesn't really matter if there really is some kind of thought process going on, it would just have a different time scale than we can comprehend.

It would be what it is. That's also why science just doesn't seem capable of reaching into qualia. It can describe how sound is generated in the brain (perhaps?) but it just can't describe what it is like to hear sound and how it creates that qualia. The qualia seem to be fundamentally different from the process that produces it.

I agree that thinking about visual images requires a brain, or even thinking about the conscious experience, you are also not fully conscious of what is in the image until you actually identify the part that you are a conscious of (you might mistake an apple for a pear until you actually identify it as an apple and only then does it fully become a apple in your view). That is, however, on a higher level than simply being aware of existence.

 

Maybe, but we need a different approach, perhaps working alongside GPT-3 in order to accomplish that. It isn't only about the number of neurons, there's also a lot about structure, as it is with the brain, there are specialized structures that deals with different things.

 

But it has an enormous range of best suited tokens to choose from, 1 "token" from memory at a time, each producing a best guess.
And that is very much how humans do it. "Shall I do this, or this, or this, or this? 1 "idea" from memory at a time, each one producing a best guess. A prediction. (Anil Seth)

But that is precisely how humans do it. The understanding emerges with consideration of different perspectives (Roger Antonsen). This is what allows us to view and imagine the back of a 3D object, as compared to Plato's 2D cave figures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-allegory-of-the-cave-120330

Oh yesss, I agree.
Tegmark proposes that consciousness is an emergent quality of specific patterns. IOW it is the self-referential processing pattern that acquires a self-aware consciousness. Can a GPT3 achieve that? If not, why not?

The developers have indicated that they have not yet reached a ceiling (a limit) on the basic design. The problem is memory. This is where the human brain is so extraordinary.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117121803.htm#

Can this staggeringly large number be achieved artificially, without resorting to nano-scale biology?

Working alongside a GPT3 might offer a unique insight into an emergent consciousness along with greater complexity or processing algorithms. It could keep a precise record at what point it gains "insight" in a specific context. The only question is if we can trust the AI to tell the truth.

If you ask a GPT3 if it is conscious, it will answer affirmatively (see video interview). You see the paradox this presents? What are you going to do? Make it swear an oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and it does?
What makes you believe me if I tell you I am conscious? What is different, that you would believe me, but not a GPT3?