Thursday, March 31, 2016

A neuroscientist explains why artificially intelligent robots will never have consciousness like humans


Bobby Azarian, Raw Story

31 MAR 2016 AT 12:33 ET          

A human-like robot (Shutterstock)

me of today’s top techies and scientists are very publicly expressing their concerns over apocalyptic scenarios that are likely to arise as a result of machines with motives. Among the fearful are intellectual heavyweights like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, who all believe that advances in the field of machine learning will soon yield self-aware A.I.s that seek to destroy us—or perhaps just dispose of us, much like scum getting obliterated by a windshield wiper. In fact, Dr. Hawking told the BBC, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Indeed, there is little doubt that future A.I. will be capable of doing significant damage. For example, it is conceivable that robots could be programmed to function as tremendously dangerous autonomous weapons unlike any seen before. Additionally, it is easy to imagine an unconstrained software application that spreads throughout the Internet, severely mucking up our most efficient and relied upon medium for global exchange.
But these scenarios are categorically different from ones in which machines decide to turn on us, defeat us, make us their slaves, or exterminate us. In this regard, we are unquestionably safe. On a sadder note, we are just as unlikely to someday have robots that decide to befriend us or show us love without being specifically prompted by instructions to do so.
This is because such intentional behavior from an A.I. would undoubtedly require a mind, as intentionality can only arise when something possesses its own beliefs, desires, and motivations. The type of A.I. that includes these features is known amongst the scientific community as “Strong Artificial Intelligence”. Strong A.I., by definition, should possess the full range of human cognitive abilities. This includes self-awareness, sentience, and consciousness, as these are all features of human cognition.
On the other hand, “Weak Artificial Intelligence” refers to non-sentient A.I. The Weak A.I. Hypothesis states that our robots—which run on digital computer programs—can have no conscious states, no mind, no subjective awareness, and no agency. Such A.I. cannot experience the world qualitatively, and although they may exhibit seemingly intelligent behavior, it is forever limited by the lack of a mind.
A failure to recognize the importance of this strong/weak distinction could be contributing to Hawking and Musk’s existential worries, both of whom believe that we are already well on a path toward developing Strong A.I. (a.k.a. Artificial General Intelligence). To them it is not a matter of “if”, but “when”.

But the fact of the matter is that all current A.I. is fundamentally Weak A.I., and this is reflected by today’s computers’ total absence of any intentional behavior whatsoever. Although there are some very complex and relatively convincing robots out there that appear to be alive, upon closer examination they all reveal themselves to be as motiveless as the common pocket calculator.
This is because brains and computers work very differently. Both compute, but only one understands—and there are some very compelling reasons to believe that this is not going to change. It appears that there is a more technical obstacle that stands in the way of Strong A.I. ever becoming a reality.
Turing Machines Aren’t Thinking Machines
All digital computers are binary systems. This means that they store and process information exclusively in terms of two states, which are represented by different symbols—in this case 1s and 0s. It is an interesting fact of nature that binary digits can be used to represent most things; like numbers, letters, colors, shapes, images, and even audio with near perfect accuracy.
This two-symbol system is the foundational principle that all of digital computing is based upon. Everything a computer does involves manipulating two symbols in some way. As such, they can be thought of as a practical type of Turing machine—an abstract, hypothetical machine that computes by manipulating symbols.
A Turing machine’s operations are said to be “syntactical”, meaning they only recognize symbols and not the meaning of those symbols—i.e., their semantics. Even the word “recognize” is misleading because it implies a subjective experience, so perhaps it is better to simply say that computers are sensitive to symbols, whereas the brain is capable of semantic understanding.
It does not matter how fast the computer is, how much memory it has, or how complex and high-level the programming language. The Jeopardy and Chess playing champs Watson and Deep Blue fundamentally work the same as your microwave. Put simply, a strict symbol-processing machine can never be a symbol-understanding machine. The influential philosopher John Searle has cleverly depicted this fact by analogy in his famous and highly controversial “Chinese Room Argument”, which has been convincing minds that “syntax is not sufficient for semantics” since it was published in 1980. And although some esoteric rebuttals have been put forth (the most common being the “Systems Reply”), none successfully bridge the gap between syntax and semantics. But even if one is not fully convinced based on the Chinese Room Argument alone, it does not change the fact that Turing machines are symbol manipulating machines and not thinking machines, a position taken by the great physicist Richard Feynman over a decade earlier.
Feynman described the computer as “A glorified, high-class, very fast but stupid filing system,” managed by an infinitely stupid file clerk (the central processing unit) who blindly follows instructions (the software program). Here the clerk has no concept of anything—not even single letters or numbers. In a famous lecture on computer heuristics, Feynman expressed his grave doubts regarding the possibility of truly intelligent machines, stating that, “Nobody knows what we do or how to define a series of steps which correspond to something abstract like thinking.”
These points present very compelling reasons to believe that we may never achieve Strong A.I., i.e., truly intelligent artificial agents. Perhaps even the most accurate of brain simulations will not yield minds, nor will software programs produce consciousness. It just might not be in the cards for a strict binary processor. There is nothing about processing symbols or computation that generates subjective experience or psychological phenomena like qualitative sensations.
Upon hearing this, one might be inclined to ask, “If a computer can’t be conscious, then how can a brain?” After all, it is a purely physical object that works according to physical law. It even uses electrical activity to process information, just like a computer. Yet somehow we experience the world subjectively—from a first person perspective where inner, qualitative and ineffable sensations occur that are only accessible to us. Take for example the way it feels when you see a pretty girl, drink a beer, step on a nail, or hear a moody orchestra.
The truth is, scientists are still trying to figure all this out. ­How physical phenomena, like biochemical and electrical processes, create sensation and unified experience is known as the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”, and is widely recognized by neuroscientists and philosophers. Even neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris—who shares Musk’s robot-rebellion concerns—acknowledges the hard problem when stating that whether a machine could be conscious is “an open question”. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to fully realize that for machines to pose an existential threat arising from their own self-interests, conscious is required.
Yet although the problem of consciousness is admittedly hard, there is no reason to believe that it is not solvable by science. So what kind of progress have we made so far?
Consciousness Is A Biological Phenomenon
Much like a computer, neurons communicate with one another through exchanging electrical signals in a binary fashion. Either a neuron fires or it doesn’t, and this is how neural computations are carried out. But unlike digital computers, brains contain a host of analogue cellular and molecular processes, biochemical reactions, electrostatic forces, global synchronized neuron firing at specific frequencies, and unique structural and functional connections with countless feedback loops.
Even if a computer could accurately create a digital representation of all these features, which in itself involves many serious obstacles, a simulation of a brain is still not a physical brain. There is a fundamental difference between the simulation of a physical process and the physical process itself. This may seem like a moot point to many machine learning researchers, but when considered at length it appears anything but trivial.
Simulation Does Not Equal Duplication
The Weak A.I. hypothesis says that computers can only simulate the brain, and according to some like John Searle—who coined the terms Strong and Weak A.I.—a simulation of a conscious system is very different from the real thing. In other words, the hardware of the “machine” matters, and mere digital representations of biological mechanisms have no power to cause anything to happen in the real world.
Let’s consider another biological phenomenon, like photosynthesis.Photosynthesis refers to the process by which plants convert light into energy. This process requires specific biochemical reactions only viable given a material that has specific molecular and atomic properties. A perfect computer simulation—an emulation—of photosynthesis will never be able to convert light into energy no matter how accurate, and no matter what type of hardware you provide the computer with. However, there are in fact artificial photosynthesis machines. These machines do not merely simulate the physical mechanisms underlying photosynthesis in plants, but instead duplicate, the biochemical and electrochemical forces using photoelectrochemical cells that do photocatalytic water splitting.
In a similar way, a simulation of water isn’t going to possess the quality of ‘wetness’, which is a product of a very specific molecular formation of hydrogen and oxygen atoms held together by electrochemical bonds. Liquidity emerges as a physical state that is qualitatively different from that expressed by either molecule alone.
With this in mind, we can still speculate about whether non-biological machines that support consciousness can exist, but we must realize that these machines may need to duplicate the essential electrochemical processes (whatever those may be) that are occurring in the brain during conscious states. If this were possible at all without organic materials, it would presumably require more than Turing machines, which are purely syntactic processors (symbol manipulators), and digital simulations, which may lack the necessary physical mechanisms.
The best approach to achieving Strong A.I. requires finding out how the brain does what it does first, and machine learning researchers’ biggest mistake is to think they can take a shortcut around it. As scientists and humans, we must be optimistic about what we can accomplish. At the same time, we must not be overly confident in ways that steer us in wrong directions and blind us from making real progress.

The Myth of Strong A.I.
Since as early as the 1960s, A.I. researchers have been claiming that Strong A.I. is just around the corner. But despite monumental increases in computer memory, speed, and processing power, we are no closer than before. So for now, just like the brainy sci-fi films of the past that depict apocalyptic A.I. scenarios, truly intelligent robots with inner conscious experience remain a fanciful fantasy.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

A very pretty girl

Second Wind

from youtube

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Monday, March 28, 2016

FBI has accessed San Bernardino shooter’s phone without Apple’s help

from washington post 

The Justice Department is abandoning its bid to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack because investigators have found a way in without the tech giant’s assistance, prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday.
In a three-sentence filing, prosecutors wrote they had “now successfully accessed the data” stored on Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone, and they consequently no longer needed Apple’s court-ordered help getting in. The stunning move averts a courtroom showdown pitting Apple and privacy interests against the government and security concerns that many in the tech community had warned might set dangerous precedents.
It is unclear how, precisely, investigators got into the phone, or what FBI agents learned about the San Bernardino plot from the materials they were able to review. On the eve of a hearing in the case last week, the FBI hadsignaled it might have found a way into Farook’s device, writing in a court filing that “an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method.” But government officials said they wanted to test that method further before employing it in Farook’s case, and they did not offer details about who proposed it or how it would work.
The Justice Department declined to comment on Monday. Apple said it was still formulating a response to the news and had no immediate comment.
The government will now be left to decide whether it will outline the method to Apple in keeping with a little-known process in which federal officials are supposed to consider disclosing security vulnerabilities they find.
Michael Daniel, special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator, wrote in a White House blog post published in April 2014, that “disclosing vulnerabilities usually makes sense,” given how much people rely on the Internet and connected devices.
“But there are legitimate pros and cons to the decision to disclose, and the trade-offs between prompt disclosure and withholding knowledge of some vulnerabilities for a limited time can have significant consequences,” Daniel wrote. “Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation’s intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks.”
Agents and prosecutors were focused for now on the San Bernardino case, and no decision had yet been made on disclosing the vulnerability, said a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Mark Bartholomew, a professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School who specializes in intellectual property and technology law, said he expected Apple would fight to learn about it so they could fix the problem.
“They’re going to pursue this in the courts, and I don’t know where this will end up,” Bartholomew said.
Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were killed in a shootout with police after they launched a deadly attack that killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif., in December. Prosecutors have said their neighbor, Enrique Marquez Jr., was also involved in terrorist plots and had discussed with Farook possibly targeting a nearby community college and highway. He is facing charges in federal court.
The bid to access Farook’s phone was meant to further the FBI’s investigation, thought it was controversial from the start. The Justice Department obtained a court order compelling Apple’s assistance under the All Writs Act, a centuries old law that gives courts the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
If allowed to stand, the order in Apple’s case would have forced company engineers to create software to disable a phone security feature so that the FBI could try its hand at unlocking the device by cracking a numeric password. Apple quickly resisted, though, arguing that forcing it to create such software would violate the company’s constitutional rights and weaken privacy for users around the world.
Federal prosecutors and the FBI had sought to characterize the dispute as limited to only Farook’s phone, though FBI director James Comey acknowledged that it could set a precedent if the government won. They argued that Apple, which creates its own software, was the only party that was in a position to help.
Monday’s filing squarely contradicts that claim — though federal authorities have said someone came forward with the new technique came only after the FBI began its high-profile legal battle with Apple. Neither side backed down from their core arguments, though with Monday’s filing, a legal resolution will remain on hold. That means it might take another case to determine to what extent the All Writs Act permits a court to order a company to provide technical assistance in unlocking encrypted devices.
Aaron Levie, co-founder and chief executive of cloud computing company Box, Inc., which filed a legal brief supporting Apple’s case, said he didn’t see a winner in the FBI’s decision to withdraw the case. “I can’t anoint any winner,” he said in an interview. “This entire experience has brought to the fore a much bigger problem that remains unresolved.”
Bartholomew, the law professor, said Congress might even be spurred to weigh in.
The technique the government found to get into the phone, though, might see immediate re-use. In a court filing last week, Apple told a federal judge that if the solution worked, it wanted to see if it could also be used to unlock an iPhone used by a drug dealer in a Brooklyn case and eliminate the need for the company’s help there. Notably, the two phones run on different operating systems — Farook’s on a newer iOS 9 and the drug dealer’s on an older iOS 7. And Apple has previously extracted data from locked phones running older operating systems.
A federal official said the new technique, so far, has only been demonstrated to work on iOS 9, though Apple has said in previous court filings that it would like to test that claim.
Elizabeth Dwoskin and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
Read more:
Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Truth Justice and the American way,, Ha !

I hate to say it, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave in to their apparent masters. The court ignored my charges, and undeniable gacts in my case and decided instead, of answering these undeniable fats, decided , instead to change the rules of the game. Shame on you Justices Wallace , Leavy, and Bybee Protect yours careers, fuck the truth,, is that it, buck,, you cant win, so change the rules Fuck you assholes Gary Lawrence Ozenne

Thursday, March 24, 2016

This Needs to be repeated over and over again


Did you know any ofthe families of the 22 veterans who killed themselves today ?  


Comedian Garry Shandling Dies at 66

from eonline and Hollywood reporter

Garry Shandling
Garry ShandlingJason LaVeris/FilmMagic
Garry Shandling has died at age 66.
The Los Angeles Police Department confirms to E! News the actor and comedian—who is known to have influenced the likes of Ricky GervaisJon StewartJudd Apatow and more—passed away on Thursday at a hospital in Los Angeles.
E! News learned the Los Angeles Fire Department responded to a medical emergency at 10:40 Thursday morning for an address listed under Shandling. The patient was then transported to St. John's Hospital by ambulance and was alive at the time of transport.
Shandling was most known for his work on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, frequently appearing as a guest. He also created It's Garry Shandling's Show in 1986 which lasted until 1990, seeing several Emmy nominations.
Garry ShandlingTiffany Rose/Getty Images for Harold & Carole Pump Foundation
His second show, The Larry Sanders Show, saw even more success when it began airing in 1992. He ended up being nominated for 18 Emmy Awards for the show and saw a win in 1998.
Shandling will appear in The Jungle Book movie, which is set to premiere on April 4th, hitting theaters on April 15th.
He most recently appeared on his old friend Jerry Seinfeld's web-series,Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, in January. His last photo on social media was of him spending time with Kathy Griffin and Bob Odenkirk on Sunday, March 20. Griffin shared the photo from the outing.
</> Get Embed Code
<iframe src="" width="610" height="344" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

This is not America or the one I was taught about

March 22, 2016

In October of 2015, I petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in my case against Ocwen and Chase, 11-60039, to take 'judicial notice' of several recent occuring in the last 18 months affecting  Ocwen Fedeal Bank. Providing just court decisions and settlements, and investigations, I thought this news may be of benefit when considering my case,  and noteworthy news facts that had occured in the last 15 months, and five years since this case was filed.  in June 2011.  These documents   which were generally known by the public of legal proceedings against the banks 

settlement with Chase   March 2015 

From Investigations by NPR  November 2014

A settlement with the Feds   Dec 2013 

On Dec 19, 2013, the California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announced a $2.1 Billion Mortgage Settlement with Ocwen Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) over alleged mortgage servicing misconduct. California homeowners eligible to receive an estimated $268 million in first lien principal reductions and nearly $23 million in cash payments.[23]
This agreement is with a total of 49 states with $2 billion used to cover loan modifications and principle reductions for the people who lost their homes between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 21, 2012, and those people whose loans were serviced by OCWEN. "OCWEN took advantage of borrowers at every stage of the process", said Richard Cordray, Director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[24]
A copy of the 67-page California Complaint can be found here:[25]
A copy of the 173-page California Consent Order can be found here:[26]
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB was liquidated by themselves in 2005 the FDIC report is here:[27]

With all this news, I concluded I should take notice of these major events, and update the court, so they had the lasest information about the litigants arguing in their court. Obviously the court, with its own resources, and present technology, know about all facts that occur before a hearing about the particular litigants.  So I informed them, so that these would become part of the record. No Luck , No Dice, No reason.  

From "The Falcon and the Snowman" 

Why security experts called Donald Trump’s response to the Belgium attacks ‘preposterous’

from washingtonpost

For months now, Americans have wondered whether Donald Trump’s most controversial foreign policy proposals — such as closing U.S. borders to Muslims and extracting information from terrorism suspects using techniques deemed to be torture — were anything more than campaign bluster.
In the hours after bombings that killed dozens in Brussels on Tuesday, those statements took on new gravity, as the Republican front-runner was asked how he would respond to a similar attack if he were president.
“I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what’s going on,” Trump said Tuesday morning on Fox News. “We have to be smart in the United States. We’re taking in people without real documentation, we don’t know where they’re coming from, we don’t know what they’re — where they’re from, who they are.”

U.S. presidential candidates respond to Brussels attacks

Play Video2:46
Republican front-runner Donald Trump calls Brussels "a disaster," the morning after deadly blasts rocked the Belgian capital. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton urges the U.S. to "reaffirm our solidarity with your European friends." (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
During an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show, Trump reiterated his commitment to using waterboarding to gain information from terror suspects in custody.
“Frankly, the waterboarding, if it was up to me, and if we changed the laws or had the laws, waterboarding would be fine,” Trump told Savannah Guthrie and Matt Lauer when asked about what techniques he favored. “If they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information from these people.”
Experts across the political spectrum harshly criticized Trump’s statements.
Appearing on Fox News to discuss the attacks in Belgium, Michael Chertoff, who was the secretary of homeland security in the George W. Bush administration, labeled the candidate’s ideas “preposterous.”
“First of all, we have a much, much tougher refugee program than the Europeans have,” Chertoff said. “The problem the Europeans have is people showed up on their doorstep — hundreds of thousands, coming directly from the region. That does not happen in the U.S. We check people very carefully before we admit them as refugees.”
Chertoff — who served as secretary from 2005 to 2009 — added that it’s not impossible for someone to slip into the United States and carry out a major terror attack. But, he said, improvements in the country’s visa waiver program and officials’ ability to review data make it “much much harder in the U.S.”
“On the other hand, if you look historically back at people who carried out terrorist attacks in the U.S., many of them didn’t start out as Muslims,” Chertoff said.
“The idea that you can identify people who are a risk based upon their religion or the way they look is completely fallacious. It’s like going after cancer with a meat axe instead of a scalpel.”
During an appearance on MSNBC, terrorism expert Malcolm Nance said Trump’s “bluster” in the wake of Tuesday’s attacks was hampering U.S. intelligence and the armed forces.
“Donald Trump right now is validating the cartoonish view that they [Islamist militant groups] tell their operatives and that they tell their terrorists,” Nance said. “That the United States is a racist nation, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and that that’s why you must carry out terrorist attacks against them.”
Nance said that type of rhetoric is detrimental to global counterterrorism missions.
“There are intelligence officers right now that are going to have to contend with their partners over what’s being said during the U.S. presidential race,” he told MSNBC. “It’s irresponsible, and it needs to stop.”
Peter Holley is a general assignment reporter at The Washington Post. He can be reached at

Monday, March 21, 2016

Elizabeth Warren: Donald Trump is a ‘loser’

from mnnsb 

Elizabeth Warren (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty).
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listens as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray testifies before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 12, 2013. 
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty
A warning to friends and foe alike: Elizabeth Warren is ready to rumble.
The Massachusetts senator and progressive tribune has sat out the 2016 election thus far, forgoing a presidential bid herself and staying quiet about the candidates who chose to run. Last week, she signaled a readiness to re-engage in politics, and now, she’s made it clear she’s playing for keeps.
Warren came off the bench Monday by unexpectedly injecting herself into the 2016 fray with a devastating barrage on Donald Trump that both played to her expertise and engaged in some of the very same kind of personal taunting and name-calling Trump is best known for.
“Let’s be honest – Donald Trump is a loser,” Warren said in the first of several messages on Twitter and in a message posted on her Facebook page, using a word Trump himself has often deployed against his enemies.
“Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father’s empire afloat by cheating people with scams like Trump University and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who’ve concluded he’s so bad at business that he might have more money today if he’d put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone,” Warren wrote.
Warren was an expert on bankruptcy law before she ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 2012. While Trump has become a favorite punching bag of Democrats, few have gone as far as Warren in calling him out personally.
She went on: “Trump seems to know he’s a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism.”
“Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it’s our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it,” Warren concluded.
Warren is a famously cautious politician who avoids the press in Senate hallways and speaks out only on strategically chosen issues in strategically chosen ways to avoid diluting her carefully constructed brand.
The tweet storm, which was immediately greeted with cheers from the camps of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, could be read several ways.
With Sanders’ path to the Democratic nomination slipping away, Warren could be reminding the faithful of whom the real enemy is (Trump, not Clinton). And she could be bolstering her position as one of the few figures outside of President Obama who can unify the Democratic Party after the primary.
She could also be trying to provoke Trump into a fight on her issue terrain. Or simply welcoming Trump to Washington, where he met with GOP leaders ahead of his press conference and speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
But one thing is clear: She’s reminding the world that she is here and a force to be reckoned with.

Warren: Senate GOP 'paying the price for their own extremism'

Warren is the only female Democratic senator not to endorse Clinton and one of only a small handful of Democrats in the upper chamber not to endorse.
Warren laid low for the beginning of 2016, waiting to give her first major interview after three months of near silence until March 10 to Rachel Maddow.
“I’m getting more involved, and I will get more involved as we head closer and closer to November. I’m watching what’s happening right now on the Republican side, and it reaches a point where silence is not a virtue,” Warren told reporters last week. “I’ll find a way. I usually have a fairly loud voice.”