Hi Bruno Marchal
Isn't strong AI just an assumption ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 09:43:16
Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent
and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value
and the absence of all other possible values.
In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism.
Dear Bruno,
How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: "Solipsism is the philosophical idea
that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus
(alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that
knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and
other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a
metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world
and other minds do not exist."
My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is
literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers
alone cannot do what you propose.
Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to
others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number
(related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp
attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism.
Bruno
This post argues similar to my point:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965
"Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views
apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and
neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally.
The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only
the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is
that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also
make it false because the "truth" established would ipso facto make
the principle beyond control of any individual.
Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one
can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the
foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms."
This article
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=philo
argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject
Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it
as a member of the pantheon of "interpretations" of mathematics.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
