On 02 Aug 2012, at 21:55, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>The problem is I have no conception of free will and neither do
you nor does anybody else, at least not a consistent coherent one
that has any depth.
> This contradicts your own definition of free will that you already
find "much better". It is hard to follow you.
That's because you aren't paying attention. I said the values of
other definitions of free will were negative but mine was much more
valuable, it has zero value.
>> 2) Free Will is the inability to always predict ones actions even
in a unchanging environment.
>My definition is basically your "2)", and this since the beginning.
And you can restate it as "you don't know what the result of a
calculation will be until you finish it" ; unlike other free will
definitions it's clear and isn't self contradictory, but it also
isn't deep and it isn't useful so its value is zero, but zero is
greater than -10 or -100.
> You do the same error as with theology and notions of Gods. You
want them to be handled only by the crackpots.
Crackpots should have a monopoly on crackpot ideas and theology and
notions of God are crackpot ideas.
Define "God", "theology" and "crackpot idea". You talk like if you
have solve the mind-body problem, the origin of things, etc.
I remind you that I am using those terms in the pre-christian original
sense, and then I approximate those meaning in the frame of computer
science. See for example the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus'
theory.
>> Intelligence theories are not nearly as easy to come up with [as
consciousness theories] but are far far easier to test, its simple
to separate the good from the bad.
> It is actually very simple. I define a machine as intelligent, if
it is not a stupid machine.
I did not ask for a definition I asked for the Fundamental Theorem
of Intelligence that explains how intelligence works and can be
proven to be correct by making a dumb thing, like a collection of
microchips, smart. Hard to come up with but simple to test, it would
be the other way around if we were dreaming up new consciousness
theories.
There is no recipe for intelligence. Only for domain competence.
Intelligence can "diagonalize" again all recipes. Even for competence,
effective recipes are not tractable, and by weakening the test
criteria, it is possible to show the existence of a non constructive
hierarchy of more and more competent machines. It can be proved that
such hierarchy are necessarily not constructive, so that competence
really can evolve only through long stories of trial and errors.
Intelligence is basically a non constructive notion. It is needed for
the development of competence, but competence itself has a negative
feedback on intelligence. Competent people can get easily stuck in
their domain of competence, somehow.
If you are interested in theoretical study of competence, you might
read the paper by Case and Smith, or the book by Oherson, Stob,
Weinstein (reference in my URL).
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
