**From:** Stuart Armstrong (*dragondreaming@googlemail.com*)

**Date:** Thu Mar 27 2008 - 07:59:40 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "Novamente's next 15 minutes of fame..."**Previous message:**Stathis Papaioannou: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**In reply to:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Next in thread:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Reply:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> I don't quite understand, or perhaps it's merely that I don't agree.
*

Your comment showed you didn't understand the point. However,

rereading the point, I realised the point was utterly wrong, which

kind of undermines my feelings of smug superiority :-) It seems

differentiation is not the example to invoque here.

But the original idea can be adapted, as follows: let us define some

other functional on the set of polynomials, via a GLUT, with

maximalish Kolmogorov Complexity, subject to only one rule "R": it

maps polynomials of the nth degree to polynomials of the (n-1)th

degree.

We then hit the set S with the usual hash function f, and have a new

GLUT, called f(GLUT), of pretty much same complexity. The rule about

polynomials is mapped to an equivalent rule f(R) on f(S), equivalent

with an ordered partition of f(S). The complexity of f(R) depends on

the details of S (in the best case, the rule is vacuous, in the worst

case, it is as complicated a f(GLUT) itself). Generally, however, it

will have much higher KC than R.

So, schematically, R is an approximation of GLUT, while f(R) is an

approximation of f(GLUT). However, generically, R will be much simpler

than GLUT, and much simpler than f(R) is vis-a-vis f(GLUT).

That is the mathematical statement of the original idea; there are

equivalents when we replace the original GLUT with some object C that

has less Kolmogorov Complexity. If we call C consciousness, and R is

some simple, crude approximation of C, we can't expect that f(R) is a

SIMPLE approximation of f(C). Hence my point for distingushing between

hash-function-equivalent setups.

And ultimately, maybe, between consciousness and an equivalent GLUT.

*> > ...Many thanks. However, the red herring is still, in my view, a
*

*>
*

*> > distinction between a GLUT and a hash-equivalent GLUT.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> I probably don't understand that. You did just get through pointing out
*

*> a vital difference between the GLUT in polynomial form, and a GLUT
*

*> in some hash function equivalent form. So what does the latter mean?
*

Sorry, me bad and incompetent: "between a rule and a hash equivalent GLUT".

Stuart

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "Novamente's next 15 minutes of fame..."**Previous message:**Stathis Papaioannou: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**In reply to:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Next in thread:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Reply:**Lee Corbin: "Re: The GLUT and functionalism"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT
*