>
> I've had a look and seen that "The paper describes a method of extracting a
> string of random bits from the behaviour of the operating system scheduler"
> - that's not random, any more than my technique of thinking of a number
> between 1 and 10 (although I choose 7 more often, it's still 'random' in
I would have thought that a person thinking of a number between one
and 10 was random, although obviously the distribution is not uniform.
Cheers
> precisely the same sense as castro).
> James
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:20 AM
> > To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> > Cc: R.Standish.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Implementation/Relativity
> >
> > Have a look at
> > http://www.csu.edu.au/special/auugwww96/proceedings/castro/castro.html
> > . This paper documents a technique for generating real random numbers
> > on unix style systems. I haven't used the technique myself, so I'm
> > only taking the paper's claims at face value. For all my simulations,
> > I've been happy to use pseudo random numbers.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > >
> > > Russell, I know you're director of the High Performance Computing
> > > Support Unit, but real computers can NOT generate random numbers, unless
> > > they're hooked up to a radioactive source. (In the latter case, they can
> > > generate numbers which appear random to us because we are uinable to
> > predict
> > > which branch of the multiverse we will end up in after any given
> > > measurement).
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 6:03 AM
> > > > To: hpm.domain.name.hidden
> > > > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden; R.Standish.domain.name.hidden.EDU.AU
> > > > Subject: Re: Fwd: Implementation/Relativity
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>:
> > > > > > conciousness we experience directly ... generated by some kind of
> > > > > > self-referential process ... is intrinsically a different to
> > > > > > the Turing type tests we perform to attribute conciousness in
> > > > > > external objects.
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > nor do I think it a particularly useful way of
> > > > > > thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is enormously useful for deciding whether to deal with
> > > > > particular robots as conscious!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any problem in attributing consciousness to a robot that
> > > > convinces me that it is conscious, in just the same way as I attribute
> > > > consciousness to a dog. Animal consciousness such as a dogs only
> > > > appear to differ in degree rather than in kind to me. On the other
> > > > hand a supposed conscious rock would truly differ in kind, as the
> > > > attribution of consciousness gives us no predictive power on their
> > > > properties.
> > > >
> > > > I also agree with the idea that consciousness is a relative property,
> > > > one that is in the eye of the beholder. In the eye of this beholder,
> > > > "free will" is an essential property of consciousness, and its hard
> > > > for me to see how a Turing machine could have free will. Of course, it
> > > > is not necessary to construct robots from Turing machines, but most
> > > > likely they will be able to simulate a Turing machine, as the human
> > > > brain can do. I really suspect that the human brain is capable of more
> > > > than a Turing machine can do.
> > > >
> > > > The simplest operation I can think of that Turing machines can't do is
> > > > generate true random numbers (real computers can do this, albeit in
> > > > usually in very kludgy ways). I'm not entirely sure that the human
> > > > brain can generate truly random numbers either, but probably it
> > > > can. This is why I speculate that the random number generator may be
> > > > necessary and sufficient for "free will".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yours isn't. Your quest already has a few centuries of western
> > > > > philosophy of mind under its belt, and is no closer to finding the
> > > > > objective qualities that constitute consciousness. Like the effort
> > > > > to define the properties of phlogiston or the luminiferous ether,
> > > > > it doesn't work because its subject matter is an abstraction that
> > > > > changes with viewpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And you a proposing that considering rocks as conscious will help find
> > > > these qualities too?
> > > >
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > > > High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> > > > University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> > > > Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> > > > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> > > > Room 2075, Red Centre
> > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> > University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> > Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Jul 29 1999 - 00:58:06 PDT