On 15 Jan 2012, at 00:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 07:02:52AM +0200, acw wrote:
On 1/6/2012 18:57, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jan 2012, at 11:02, acw wrote:
Thanks for replying. I was worried my post was too big and few
people will bother reading it due to size. I hope to read your
opinion on the viability of the experiment I presented in my
original post.
Any chance you could break it up into smaller digestible pieces?
That would be good idea. read it twice, and generate too much comments
in my head, and none seems to address the point. Now i am more busy,
so acw will need to be patient I grasp his idea.
To Bruno Marchal:
Do you plan on ever publishing your thesis in english? My french
is a
bit rusty and it would take a rather long time to walk through it,
however I did read the SANE and CC&Q papers, as well as a few
others.
I think that SANE is enough, although some people pushes me to
submit to
some more public journal. It is not yet clear if physicist or
logician
will understand. Physicists asks the good questions but don't have
the
logical tools. Logicians have the right tools, but are not really
interested in the applied question. By tradition modern logicians
despise their philosophical origin. Some personal contingent
problems
slow me down, too. Don't want to bore you with this.
If it's sufficient, I'll just have to read the right books to better
understand AUDA, as it is now, I understood some parts, but also had
trouble connecting some ideas in the AUDA.
Maybe I should write a book. There is, on my url, a long version
of the
thesis in french: "conscience et mécanisme", with all details, but
then
it is 700 pages long, and even there, non-logician does not grasp
the
logic. It is a pity but such kind of work reveals the abyssal gap
between logicians and physicists, and the Penrose misunderstanding
of
Gödel's theorem has frightened the physicists to even take any look
further. To defend the thesis it took me more time to explain
elementary
logic and computer science than philosophy of mind.
A book would surely appeal to a larger audience, but a paper which
only mentions the required reading could also be enough, although in
the latter case fewer people would be willing to spend the time to
understand it.
There is a project underway to translate "Secret de l'amibe" into
English, which IMHO is an even better introduction to the topic than
Bruno's theses (a lot of technical detail has been supressed to make
the central ideas digestible). We're about half way through at present
- its a volunteer project though, so it will probably be another year
or so before it is done/
Thanks to Russell and Kim.
Does anyone have a complete downloadable archive of this mailing
list,
besides the web-accessible google groups or nabble one?
Google groups seems to badly group posts together and generates
some
duplicates for older posts.
I agree. Google groups are not practical. The first old archive were
very nice (Escribe); but like with all software, archiving get worst
with time. nabble is already better, and I don't know if there are
other
one. Note also that the everything list, maintained by Wei Dai, is a
list lasting since a long time, so that the total archive must be
rather
huge. Thanks to Wei Dai to maintain the list, despite the ASSA
people
(Hal Finney, Wei Dai in some post, Schmidhuber, ...) seems to have
quit
after losing the argument with the RSSA people. Well, to be sure
Russell
Standish still use ASSA, it seems to me, and I have always
defended the
idea that ASSA is indeed not completely non sensical, although it
concerns more the geography than the physics, in the comp frame.
If someone from those early times still has the posts, it might be
nice if they decided to post an archive (such as a mailer spool).
For large Usenet groups, it's not unusual for people to have
personal archives, even from 1980's and earlier.
I have often thought this would be a very useful resource - sadly I
never kept my own archive. It would probably be a good idea to webbot
/ spider to download the contents of the archives as they currently
exist.
That might be useful. Especially with things like NDAA, SOPA, etc.
Looks like deeper threats than usual accumulate on the free world.
I had no idea that was the reason I don't seem them post
anymore(when I was looking at older posts, I saw they used to post
here).
For most people, the everything list is a side interest, and other
priorities and interests will interfere with particpation. Bruno is
one of the few people who has dedicated his life to this topic, so one
shouldn't be too surprised if other people leave the list out of
exhaustion :).
In cognitive science, many confuse science and philosophy. I like
philosophy but it is not my job. I don't defend any truth, but only
attempt to criticize invalid arguments.
As for losing the "RSSA vs ASSA" debate, what was the conclusive
argument that tilts the favor toward RSSA (if it's too long, linking
to the thread will do)? In my personal opinion, I used to initially
consider ASSA as generally true, because assuming continuity of
consciousness is a stronger hypothesis, despite being 'felt' from
the inside, but then I realized that if I'm assuming
consciousness/mind, I might as well assume continuity as well (from
the perspective of the observer), otherwise I can't reason about my
future expectations.
There is a reasonably detailed discussion of this issue in my book. My
recollection was that it was a kind of stalemate - an "agree to
disagree" kind of thing.
Nevertheless, I was curious at Bruno classifying me as an ASSA
supporter, given my very public support of the RSSA. I can only assume
he is referring to my insistance that the Anthropic Principle not only
works, but is essential to eliminate the Occam catastrophe. But I see
the AP as quite an orthogonal question to the RSSA vs ASSA debate.
AP and ASSA makes sense for the geography, but with comp, the physics
is absolute and the same for all machines, and it requires relativity.
It is like Everett, but for arithmetic. It leads to an absolute
"relative state theory".
Bruno
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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
.
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.
