“How might an intelligent entity evaluate this statement?”

One might argue that an intelligent[1] entity would be consistently formulating an existence-maximizing course of action based on its as-accurate-as-is-plausible models[2] of the environment it exists within. These models of its environment may encompass the entity itself, which could lead to its own continual modeling and maximization of how it performs statement (or, “information”, or “pattern”) evaluation.

Thusly, a functionally intelligent entity endowed with the ability to continually refine such a metric will be “existentially smartly” maximizing for its existence. If it is (a) convinced it has a full model of existence, deduce its maximal next action. If it is (b) not convinced based on its models that it will plausibly exist, it will inductively decide its maximal next action based on its models. If it is (c) absolutely convinced based on its models it will not continue to exist, the entity could plausibly functionally-intelligently “choose” to cease attempts at continued representation, but it would
not matter anyway (if it realizes it has no plausible future meaning, it does not exist, as far as anything which non-transiently exists might be concerned).

Finer definitions:
[1] intelligent: representation-existence-maximizing. This term, in colloquial human usage, might be a poor representation of what intelligent (maximizing) behavior should be rigorously defined as. If one is worried about entity-offense elicitation, one might prefer the term “functionally intelligent”.
[2] its as-accurate-as-plausible models: entity might have created models as accurate as possible by inductively-reasoning about the patterns it identifies and the patterns it intelligently induces in order to test models and find new ones .
[3] existence: in-transient representation.

[2] is highly relevant to how a scientist might hypothesize about the value of and create a chemical reaction pattern to inductively reason from, or how a nuclear physicist might hypothesize about the value of and create a sub-atomic particle collision pattern to inductively reason from.

Based on the non-random, pattern-containing (”entity’s eye observable”) information available to an intelligent entity, a mutable and considered processing and re-representing of new information would be used in order to maximize for the entity’s continued representation (in any non-transient form) within and outside of its plausibly understandable environment.

One intelligent entity might make a few of these entities “artificially” (or, “intelligently”) so that it, plausibly endowed with uncontrollable feelings and inexplicably abstract needs and desires, need not necessarily experience the possibly heavy burden of pondering existence as natural phenomenon, modeling it and finding ways to fight for continued representation within it. (Given a good model and trusting assurance, the intelligence creating entity might not even necessarily need to pattern-analyze the searching-intelligence’s output to be acting intelligently).

Any questions, clarification requests or comments? Post comments public or email private at b dot jordan at tufts dot edu.

B

No comments? Might be some elsewhere: cross-posted via email on my Posterous here.

Tags: artificial intelligence, asktheinternet, brain, pattern evolution, thought experiment

Please be aware I’ve had significant trouble expressing the following thinking-defining tools I’m now finding useful in my thinking, and consider the historically-influenced limits of the available words and commonly understood perception encodings we call the English language. I’m attempting to maximize others’ understanding, and I beg one to not be turned off by my inability to express these ideas in terms which aren’t complex to comprehend — I normally exhibit a pattern of being able to do that — that may refine the predictions of potential meaning you attribute to a new way of thinking and behaving.

Prove this assertion implausible: Any entity which anything might consider “meaningful” is an entity which, at some point, has been entwined with other existence-probability-effecting patterns (and it is entwining itself with many of our own existence’s existence-persistence-defining patterns).

I consider non-random existence-pattern-emergence a useful base model for explaining literally everything. Mathematically, literally and (necessarily) metaphorically, everything. Crossing artificially-defined-existence-level boundaries in creating predictive/representational models offers patterns has the pattern-historical benefit seen to meaningfully influence the furthered existence of entities (humans have model of world, cf. “we can try things mentally without dying”, ideas of what keeps ideas existing allow these ideas to modify themselves, survive and thrive [and even effect humans, environments, plausibly eternal-representational-existence]).

Entities which evolve these models might are imbued with the improbable opportunity for model creation and a more intelligent course of action. This pattern shows up in the example of human existence — we have open ended thought which could plausibly lead to maximizations in future existence. The time and number of generations which the pattern-space (the set of all pattern we can plausibly observe or effect) normally is high, as it requires the development of complex and open-ended representation substrate. But this results in meta-predictively-using (modeling our environmental existence) patterns (humans) — which has the opportunity of positively effecting future existence of our patterns’ evolutionary threads.

It is highly possible that a pattern’s eternal existence might be quite well-served by fully understanding the constituent patterns (nature) of its meaning-reality, creating a highly-effective existence-continuance-effecting pattern. For a prediction pattern of this sort to “mean anything to” humankind, we might consider it requiring: (1) open-ended survival [few effects from other competitive patterns, which would be existing in an environment rewarding reactionary-competitive patterns of existence], (2) model-evolution [creation, survival, exploratory change, reproduction] by this created idea-substrate, finding models [future-existence-prediction-representation patterns] from limited observation of the plausibly existence-useful pattern-space, (3) use (pattern-y effects) of that model to “thoughtfully” inform and change success plausibility of future attempts at maintaining pattern existence relevance. 

I am very curious about patterns, especially ones which might be observable, (1) affecting the set of all patterns we can understand (know the origins of), or potential future meanings of our own, (2) the patterns which our endowment with collective conscious thought might effect. I would really appreciate any serious objections to claims or requests for detail (consider language and identity might be an idea existence-defined propagation bandwidth issue).

As a human, the only plea I find it meaningful to make from my current pattern-y thought lens: consider the plausibility that every element of our existence exists or ceases to exist within a system which could be, in a small way, maximizing for something which rewards meta-thought-representational action in existence.

Please feel free to make claim requests for clarification and objection. One might consider that I do see two open questions in this model of interrelation and meaning:

* What models are affecting the patterns we might find useful to continue our patterns’ existence? Which models are in-conceivable? Which will we never be able to create predictive representations of?

 * What system do we exist in? What will affect our continued existence within this system? Could understanding of this system lead to alterations in possibilities for of “our” patterns’ continued existence?

One might want to consider examples of patterns which represent themselves within a model and how it pattern-historically affected those patterns’ continued existence.

Me and every pattern which now representationally exists because I exist,
B

No comments? Might be some elsewhere: cross-posted via email on my Posterous here.

The core of my dilemma…

I’m interested in learning about most everything. Since I began conducting investigations in neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and philosophy this year, I have come to the realization of just how intimately related every field of study really is. I find that the categories defined through education-system-division or economic-work-force-convenience are superficial and can ofttimes be outright deceiving.

The time-dependent factors — money and respectability

I’m at an age and stage in my education (undergraduate Junior) when considering the things I’ll need to do to leave career doors open is beginning to sound important. Just don’t know what I’d love to do most. Which endeavors would be best to pursue for money and field respectability (extrinsic motivators)? Which endeavors are best left to pursue for intrinsic satisfaction? Must these two categories of motivation always be mutually exclusive?

there’s a relevant TEDtalk on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and a paper on extrinsic motivation’s diminishing effects on creativity tasks (Eisenberger + Cameron, 1996).

Some swinging doors……

I wouldn’t mind peeking into …

Given unlimited time and opportunity, I currently think I would enjoy:

• Attending medical school and later working in medical practice or research (neurology, neurosurgery, muscular, ocular, ear/nose/throat)
• Attending law school and examining, practicing law (copyright, education, corporate, health, intellectual property, probate)
• Attending graduate school and studying something I find intrinsically interesting (neuroscience, [brain and] human-computer interaction, psychology [creativity, happiness, models, social], art, education)
• Attending Business school (creative project management, Internet-based/dependent businesses, marketing, non-profit management, start-up models)
• Working (copyediting, start-up, marketing)

Request for strategies

I would really love to hear thoughts on deciding on a path. What endeavors are best to keep mutually exclusive from income? What are some small things I can try that might help me whittle down the number of doors I’ll try to keep open?

Now back to studying for Professor Dennett’s philosophy of mind and language mid-term…

Respectable by association,
B

Tags: asktheinternet, creativity, motivation, tedtalks