Bruno:
Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene. All: Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which they exist). Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon the material from which they are constructed. Methinks that Roger mistakes life for the substrate. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Roger, On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command "self", but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives "x"x"", then D"D" gives "D"D"". D"D" gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. Very simple program ("simple" meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the Gé°€el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education. Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. Bruno Roger Clough, <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> rclo...@verizon.net 8/27/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> I agree different implementations of intelligence have different >> capabilities and >> roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any >> intelligence (so long >> as infinities or true randomness are not required). > > And now a subtle point. Perhaps. > > The point is that computers are general enough to replicate intelligence EVEN > if > infinities and true randomness are required for it. > > Imagine that our consciousness require some ORACLE. For example under the > form of a some > non compressible sequence 11101000011101100011111101010110100001... (say) > > Being incompressible, that sequence cannot be part of my brain at my > substitution level, > because this would make it impossible for the doctor to copy my brain into a > finite > string. So such sequence operates "outside my brain", and if the doctor copy > me at the > right comp level, he will reconstitute me with the right "interface" to the > oracle, so I > will survive and stay conscious, despite my consciousness depends on that > oracle. > > Will the UD, just alone, or in arithmetic, be able to copy me in front of > that oracle? > > Yes, as the UD dovetails on all programs, but also on all inputs, and in this > case, he > will generate me successively (with large delays in between) in front of all > finite > approximation of the oracle, and (key point), the first person indeterminacy > will have > as domain, by definition of first person, all the UD computation where my > virtual brain > use the relevant (for my consciousness) part of the oracle. > > A machine can only access to finite parts of an oracle, in course of a > computation > requiring oracle, and so everything is fine. That's how I imagine COMP instantiates the relation between the physical world and consciousness; that the physical world acts like the oracle and provides essential interactions with consciousness as a computational process. Of course that doesn't require that the physical world be an oracle - it may be computable too. Brent > > Of course, if we need the whole oracular sequence, in one step, then comp > would be just > false, and the brain need an infinite interface. > > The UD dovetails really on all programs, with all possible input, even > infinite non > computable one. > > 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. <mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com.> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <mailto:%20unsubscr...@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. 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. 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.
