My demonstration is that the premises lead to the existence of a network of nodes which surpasses the human network in all respects concerning political, economical, scientific intelligence: the nodes are individually more performing than individual humans, and the network is at least as performing as the human network.
Since (as I demonstrated in my prior reply to you with the example of unbounded entropy of the universe) it is impossible for any of us to have a top-down totally-ordered comprehension of the totality of the complexity of the human network, then your presumption that you can make such a determination by comparing a few aspects of the network that you deem to be cardinal is quite ludicrous and audacious (but respectfully your communication has not been ostentatious and again my frustration is having to repeat myself).
Publish an academic paper with such "sound" arguments and subject it to peer review, lol.
Read on for more specific refutation...
The last bit is simple to demonstrate: as the human network is built ON TOP of a machine network
And on top of a human network which builds and maintains that machine network.
If you removed ALL of the humans for 1 hour, the machine network would experience failure and outages. Within probably 24 hours or so, the entire Internet would probably be down.
You seem to forget/discount that the machine network exists within the chaos of nature, a nature to which we biological humans are already well adapted over 1000s (or millions?) of years.
then of course the machine network, as a network is at least as performingperformant as the human network built on top of it.
So TCP/IP is as performant as Bitcoin's protocol which is built on top of TCP/IP. Logic fail.
This also goes for "public knowledge". All public knowledge "on the internet" is of course also available to machines.
As if everyone human interprets every slice of information in the same way.
There is no one "correct" (canonical) interpretation of anything. The entire point of diversity and adaptation is resilience to an UNKNOWN (unbounded entropy) future.
None of us can measure the entropy of the human network. It in incalculable. I have already explained why but you don't seem to grasp the example of unbounded entropy (did you not watch
Hewitt's video which I linked for you). For as long as you fail to understand why, then you are wasting my time by replying. Unless you say something new which doesn't repeat the same mistakes, I am probably going to ignore your future posts on this issue. Because this is getting redundant.
You seem to think we start only with a very low entropy of a few TBs total and somehow adapt to all that chaos in our existence ongoing and don't go extinct. Rather the reason we cope well (and machines don't!) is because of the massive entropy encoded in our living system (ridiculous that you assume that system is only the genes and that it only starts with the individual human that is born tomorrow).
So the only thing that makes the difference is the individual node intelligence. When individual node intelligence surpasses individual human intelligence, my theorem is demonstrated.
I have already explained why that is an incorrect assumption. But even in that case, I have already explained why the machine "intelligence" can never match a human, because the human's entropy is not just any particular performance metric you decide to measure of the brain, but it is the interaction of all the cells, bacteria, and environment that makes each human and their actions, personality, thoughts, etc. all unique. And the unbounded entropy due to unbounded communication delay (see the Hewitt video!) across the network of interactions (not just the Internet but in all forms of human interaction) means that there is unbounded entropy in the network which is alive.
Machines might become part of the network, but for them to become cardinal to humans, they must adapt better than humans and subjugate humans. Raw processing power is not a given to make it so. Humans will also adapt. We can embed machines in our own body to supplement any areas where we feel machines have an advantage and then we still have our advantage of being more adapted as a starting point and we are biological, so we are much more complex with much higher entropy (there is variability even in the dynamic life of our DNA and RNA which is not completely deterministic by the starting point of the genes at birth).
But more than the comparison of any one component or aspect is the holistic adaptation and integration which we can't measure nor fathom in totality because omniscience can't exist. So it means that for machines to attain it, they would have to evolve to it, since we can't impart it to them. Evolution is orthogonal to processing power of the brain. Evolution is a phenomenon driven by the annealing of chaos over long epochs.
That was the essence of my previous posts: no, it isn't that terribly complex. The human brain is a processing system of which the fundamental software cannot surpass the full genetic information needed to *build a brain*.
Incorrect. The human is a complex system that is not deterministic from fertilization. The unbounded entropy interacts with the human body and produces a chaotic and unique result for each one. Refer to the pendulum example from Chaos theory. Refer to Hewitt's video. Refer to the example I provided in my prior reply to you.
Now, the human brain is a self-modifying piece of software, which "learns" by obtaining sensory information. You're entirely correct on that. But to "make a brain" you only need to BOOTSTRAP its construction, in exactly the same way as the human brain is constructed from genetic and epi-genetic information in the womb of the mother.
You need the entire biology, rearing, and lifetime of the human in its network environment to produce a human. That environment and network even includes the microflora that enter the digestive system. Which is very diversified and every human has a different population of microflora strains and even every bacterium is unique as each human is unique (nature doesn't ever produce an exact duplicate of anything).
You are talking about reproducing a very artificial simulation of one narrow aspect of a human. We can train A.I. to do things that we recognize as reproducible in our environment. But we can't train A.I. to adapt and evolve with the same complexity as the totality of the human network. If machines are going to evolve to be cardinal that will be due to some unpredictable outcome of nature. It is not unavoidable or fatalistic. It is quite unlikely. It is much more likely that humans will incorporate machines into human and adapt and remain cardinal to machines (because we are in a myriad of adaptation that machines don't have but we can't measure it ourselves because it is invisible information in the living network of our historic adaptation, which is not just the genes as I have explained to you but of course you won't comprehend it or agree because it doesn't fit your fatalistic Singularity religion).
One shouldn't confuse the "run-time" structure of the human brain (which can be very complex) with the code needed to implement that run-time.
And don't confuse running it now with running over millions of years in a living network which has been continuously living all that time. You have no way to extract the information in that system, because a total order of omniscience doesn't exist.
Btw, I also studied A.I. and neural nets in the 1980s.
Once you get that raw brain up and running on sufficiently powerful hardware, you can FEED it similar stimuli than a small baby receives from its sensory inputs, the most important one being the visual stimuli.
We can get machines to mimic the processing of our environment which we have identified as reproducible. What you can't teach the machine is our historic adaptation to an unknown future which is stored in the continuous living analog network for which you don't even know which sensors to build. Since you can't know everything that has ever happened, you can know the entropy that is stored in the living network.
But what is more, biological nature cannot clone a brain state, while silicon can very easily clone a brain state.
That difference should have been instructive to you, but for some reason the significance didn't occur to you.
I explained the importance of this in a prior reply:
You still don't seem to understand that the network (i.e. the free market) is alive and dynamic and no one can capture that information ever.
If you tried to extract that information then due to Chaos theory, you'd add to it in the process and then when you tried to extract what you added it to it, you add to it some more. You'd never get to the edge of the universe, because this would require that we don't exist in the first place.
We can't even extract our entropy in order to transfer it to machines. That we can't copy or even measure or know our own entropy but can copy of the entropy of machines is very instructive.
Nature never produces an exact copy of anything. You seem to think even in fertilization that the only input entropy are the genes, but that is not the case. We also have cosmic rays, the environment of the womb, etc and then the environmental stimulus ongoing even from the first cell split of the embryo. Thus the entropy of the human system is not just a few TBs of genes. The fact that you can copy machines indicates their entropy is very low.
You don't seem to understand that a total perspective on information is always contingent on the future outcomes (i.e. to distinguish information from noise requires understanding the future outcomes to which the current body of entropy will be applied) and due to the Butterfly effect then you will egregiously underestimate the possible permutations of outcomes. That is why it is incalculable. And this is also the reason that the network is the vastly greater portion of the entropy and why it is itself also alive. If we had more time and inclination, we could elucidate this more formally.
You are making a major mistake here.
No, you are.
You are perfectly right that it is essentially impossible to reproduce exactly a VERY PARTICULAR brain state: the brain state of Mary on Monday morning. That will depend on details and is prone to chaotic divergence you talked about. But we don't need Mary's brain state on Monday morning. These details don't matter. If Mary didn't look at a particular movie when she was 7 years old, she would be a different person last Monday. But we don't care. The different Mary will do too. It will also be an intelligent brain that can think politically, economically, financially and scientifically. In a totally different way than the Mary version that saw the movie. But that doesn't matter. The Mary that saw the movie, and the Mary that didn't see the movie, are both human brains that outsmart chimps. In the same way, the exact brain state our silicon arrives at doesn't matter, if it can outsmart systematically most humans. This is why chaos theory and so on don't matter in this.
The fact that Mary is a unique derivative of unbounded entropy our living, continuous, analog network is absolutely critical to the point of why the resilience and adaptation of the human system is eons greater than that of the machines.
It is sufficient that the possibility exists, and sooner or later, it will be realized. As its realization will be irreversible, once is enough.
If everything was random (i.e. instead of unbounded entropy, we had reached infinite entropy and nothing was distinguishable), then we wouldn't even bother talking about a Singularity and machines being evolutionarily superior to humans.
You are totally right that the KIND of society that will evolve is not predictable because prone to chaotically impossible to trace effects, but that's not what I'm talking about. This kind of discussion is like me saying that a big meteorite is going to hit the earth and this is going to eradicate a lot of species, and you are telling me that I can't know that because I cannot predict the details of every aspect of the collision: where will what piece of rock fly ? I don't need to do these (indeed impossible) predictions to know that the impact of the meteorite will kill off a lot of species. I would need to do this impossible thing if I'd have to predict what new species would arise afterwards. But just predicting the broad lines of the extinction doesn't need to delve into the details.
You don't seem to comprehend that the information stored in the living network is a historic adaptation to those unpredictable events and that you can't know all of it. It is recorded in our living adaptation, but you can't go experience it. It is there, but inaccessible to you. Our living network will react to its environment with that stored entropy but you can't possibly measure not calculate it (because you can't go back in time and experience every thing, and especially not every cell mutation, etc). Top-down knowledge is not complete. The little nuances of differences are what stores the eons of quadrillions (or more!) of historic adaptations.
Let's use the
equation for Pi as an example. We can communicate all of the digits of Pi by simply sending the equation for it. So it seems the entropy is very low in isolation. Now let's introduce a network of actors which respond to input by computing from Nth digit as a function of the input and their prior state, plus the unbounded nondeterminism of the communication latency across the network. Now you have unbounded entropy. That is Chaos theory. The entropy is incalculable and unbounded because it is alive. This is why top-down control always fails. This is the why the free market anneals better because the decisions are made by actors closer to their local gradients.
This is totally wrong.
No, you are incorrect again.
What I'm saying is that, indeed, sending the equation tells you how to calculate Pi. If there is enough raw computing power, you will be able to calculate the 100 billionth digit, while I sent you under one KB of information. So *it will be possible to calculate Pi's 100th billionth digit* with just 1 KB of crucial information. You don't need the more than 100 GB of run-state information to do so. Thank you for giving an example that illustrates what I'm saying. That it would be difficult or impossible to predict the EXACT STATE of a network of nodes trying to calculate that digit doesn't change the fact that in the end, that digit can be calculated. That's the point. We don't care about the exact state of a particular realisation of that computation. We only want to show that it is possible, and not even very difficult to do so.
It was the unbounded entropy introduced by the unpredictable communication delay that means the entropy of the equation for Pi is not the entropy of the system. And the point is that the continuous, living human network is going react to that unpredictable environment with its quadrillions (or more!) of historic adaptations which are stored in the knowledge and diversity of the network. But we can't extract or even calculate that pre-existing state which is also an input to the system.
P.S. another problem is it is very likely that the Singularity has become an ideological cause or religion for you. You've likely invested a lot into it being true. So it not being true is going to be a big blow.
...
What is nice about the singularity argument, is that you can stop worrying about the world.
You can stop worrying without the Singularity. The human race is well adapted unless the Earth is totally destroyed. And we are approaching extraterrestrial adaptation.
Poll
