On Oct 19, 2:26 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, do you mind if I send next week your solution (which were > correct) of the exercises I gave online once to the list? I am sure > it could help some other. All that is needed to get Church's thesis > eventually right. Recall that Church thesis is one half of COMP. >
Just saw this. Sure, no problem. David > Le 17-oct.-07, à 08:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > > > > > > On Oct 16, 11:37 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> If it is ''a'-rtificial' I question the 'natural one' (following > >>> Bruno's fear of the (natural?) 'super stupidity'.) Yet I don't think > >>> Marc wants to let himself denature into an artifact. > > >> Not necessarily, but look at Saibal's recent answer! > >> This raises a question for Mark. What if the "future "SAI"", "SI" > >> should we say, are computationalist? Marc, is it ok if those SI > >> reincarnate you digitally? Could they decide without your consent > >> (without being super-stupid?). > > > Your points are well taken Bruno. We should be highly suspicious of > > any 'authority' that thinks to act without our consent. > > > As for cryonics, Saibal , I think it's a good option. If necessary, > > I'm quite prepared to put myself in the freezer - I have no intention > > of getting any older than a biological age of 65 - if I live that long > > I might be the first guy in the world to volunteer for a 'live > > freeze' (I would probably have to move to a country where there are > > laws allowing for assisted suicide though!) > > >> Again, not necessarily. Buddhism, unlike Christianity, has always been > >> very aware that "religious truth", once "institutionalized" get wrong > >> ... > >> To kill the buddha, or sompetimes just the master, is a way to remind > >> the monk that they have to find the truth in themsleves and never to > >> take any master talk for granted. > > >>> In our (definition-wise) lower mentality it is not likely that we can > >>> 'kill' the smarter. So the condition involves the un-possibility, > >>> even > >>> if we are capable to recognise them > >>> - what we are not likely to be. > > >> Agreed. It was just a parabola for driving attention against any use > >> of > >> authoritative argument in the field of fundamentals. > >> Ah! But the lobian machine too can be shown allergic to such argument. > >> It's a universal dissident. Unforunately, humans, like dog are still > >> attracted to the practical philosophy according to which the "boss is > >> right" (especially when wrong!) > > >> Bruno > > >> PS Perhaps this week I will got the time to send the next post in the > >> "observer-moment = Sigma_1 sentence". > > > Well, I'm pleased to hear the lobian machine is a 'universal > > dissident'. I wouldn't want to imply that 'the boss is right'. All I > > was implying was that (in the case of super-intelligence) the boss > > would be *stronger*. Whether the boss is right or not, we little guys > > wouldn't have much power so our negotiating power would be seriously > > limited initally. The best that could be hoped for from such a > > hypothetical 'social contract' in the beginning is that the SI doesn't > > hurt us. > > OK. > > You know I am confident that "real" SI would not hurt you, except by > accident. The problem is that we cannot distinguished "real" SI from > "real" SI, er.... I mean real super-intelligent (Sintel) from real > super-idiot (Sidiot). > > I guess that is why democracy, when it is normally functioning, is the > best of the system, allowing to change your mind about the people we > are delegating power to. (by democracy I mean mainly here: > education + "repeated" well organized election). > > Note that normally "real SIntell" will never present themselves as > "SIntell", only real Sidiot would do that. So, although, there does > not exist a way to test Super intelligence , there are some cases where > we can be almost sure to be in front of Super-stupidity ... > > Good week-end Marc, and All, (please revise the notion of bijection. > Are everybody convinced that N is in bijection with N X N, and with N X > N X N X N X... ? > > David, do you mind if I send next week your solution (which were > correct) of the exercises I gave online once to the list? I am sure > it could help some other. All that is needed to get Church's thesis > eventually right. Recall that Church thesis is one half of COMP. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
