Hi Bruno, Long time lurker here, very intrigued by all the discussions here when I have time for them!
Earlier in response to Colin Hales you wrote: "Actually, comp prevents "artificial intelligence". Can you elaborate on this? If we assume comp (I say yes to the doctor) then I can be simulated... doesn't that imply the possibility of an artificial intelligence? Thanks, Terren On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Colin, > > On 07 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Colin Hales wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature', >> International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35. >> >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613 >> >> >> The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic! > > > Congratulation Colin. > > Like others, I don't succeed in getting it, neither at home nor at the > university. > > From the abstract I am afraid you might not have taken into account our > (many) conversations. Most of what you say about the impossibility of > building an artificial scientist is provably correct in the (weak) comp > theory. It is unfortunate that you derive this from comp+materialism, which > is inconsistent. Actually, comp prevents "artificial intelligence". This > does not prevent the existence, and even the apparition, of intelligent > machines. But this might happen *despite* humans, instead of 'thanks to the > humans'. This is related with the fact that we cannot know which machine we > are ourselves. Yet, we can make copy at some level (in which case we don't > know what we are really creating or recreating, and then, also, descendent > of bugs in regular programs can evolve. Or we can get them serendipitously. > It is also relate to the fact that we don't *want* intelligent machine, > which is really a computer who will choose its user, if ... he want one. We > prefer them to be slaves. It will take time before we recognize them > (apparently). > Of course the 'naturalist comp' theory is inconsistent. Not sure you take > that into account too. > > Artificial intelligence will always be more mike fishing or exploring > spaces, and we might *discover* strange creatures. Arithmetical truth is a > universal zoo. Well, no, it is really a jungle. We don't know what is in > there. We can only scratch a tiny bit of it. > > Now, let us distinguish two things, which are very different: > > 1) intelligence-consciousness-free-will-emotion > > and > > 2) cleverness-competence-ingenuity-gifted-learning-ability > > "1)" is necessary for the developpment of "2)", but "2)" has a negative > feedback on "1)". > > I have already given on this list what I call the smallest theory of > intelligence. > > By definition a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid. And a machine > can be stupid for two reason: > she believes that she is intelligent, or > she believes that she is stupid. > > Of course, this is arithmetized immediately in a weakening of G, the theory > C having as axioms the modal normal axioms and rules + Dp -> ~BDp. So Dt > (arithmetical consistency) can play the role of intelligence, and Bf > (inconsistance) plays the role of stupidity. G* and G proves BDt -> Bf and > G* proves BBf -> Bf (but not G!). > > This illustrates that "1)" above might come from Löbianity, and "2)" above > (the scientist) is governed by theoretical artificial intelligence (Case and > Smith, Oherson, Stob, Weinstein). Here the results are not just > NON-constructive, but are *necessarily* so. Cleverness is just something > that we cannot program. But we can prove, non constructively, the existence > of powerful learning machine. We just cannot recognize them, or build them. > It is like with the algorithmically random strings, we cannot generate them > by a short algorithm, but we can generate all of them by a very short > algorithm. > > So, concerning intelligence/consciousness (as opposed to cleverness), I > think we have passed the "singularity". Nothing is more > intelligent/conscious than a virgin universal machine. By programming it, we > can only make his "soul" fell, and, in the worst case, we might get > something as stupid as human, capable of feeling itself superior, for > example. > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
