On 16 Oct 2013, at 14:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:21:34 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2013, at 03:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:45:38 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can give you the code in Lisp, and it is up to you to find a
good free lisp. But don't mind too much, AUDA is an integral
description of the interview. Today, such interviews is done by
paper and pencils, and appears in books and papers.
You better buy Boolos 1979, or 1993, but you have to study more
logic too.
Doesn't it seem odd that there isn't much out there that is newer
than 20 years old,
That is simply wrong, and I don't see why you say that. But even if
that was true, that would prove nothing.
It still seems odd. There are a lot of good programmers out there.
If this is the frontier of machine intelligence, where is the
interest? Not saying it proves something, but it doesn't instill
much confidence that this is as fertile an area as you imply.
A revolutionary contemporary result (Gödel's incompleteness) shows
that the oldest definition of knowledge (greeks, chinese, indians)
can be applied to the oldest philosophy, mechanism, and that this is
indeed very fertile, if only by providing an utterly transparent
arithmetical interpretation of Plotinu's theology, which is the peak
of the rationalist approach in that field, and you say that this
instill any confidence in mechanism?
It doesn't instill confidence of your interpretation of
incompleteness. For myself, and I am guessing for others,
incompleteness is about the lack-of-completeness of mathematical
systems rather than a hyper-completeness of arithmetic metaphysics.
The whole point here is that the machines prove their own theorem
about themselves. The meta-arithmetic belongs to arithmetic. I don't
say much more than what the machines already say. I just need the
classical theory of knowledge (the modal logic S4), just to compare
with the machine's theory (S4Grz), like I need QM to compare with the
machines's statistics on computation seen from inside.
Do you say that Gödel was a supporter of the Plotinus view, or are
saying that even he didn't realize the implications.
Gödel was indeed a defender of platonism, at the start. But he has
been quite slow on Church thesis, and not so quick on mechanism
either. That is suggested notably by his leaning toward Anselm notion
of God.
The reductionist view of machines may be wrong, but that doesn't
mean that its absence of rules at higher level translates into
proprietary feelings, sounds, flavors, etc. Why would it?
Why not? Evidences are that a brain does that. You need to find
something non-Turing emulable in the brain to provide evidences that
it does not.
In theory it could, sure, but the universe that we live in seems to
suggest exactly the opposite.
But we can understand what is that universe, and why it suggests this,
for the machine "embedded" in that apparent universe.
It says that we must give the undead a chance to be alive - that we
cannot know for sure whether a machine is not at least as worthy of
our love as a newborn baby.
You cannot do that comparison. Is an newborn alien worthy of human
love? Other parameters than "thinking and consciousness" are at play.
What are those parameters, and how do they fit in with mechanism?
The parameters are that love asks for some close familiarity. It fits
with mechanism through long computational histories.
Anyway, it is up to you to find something non mechanical. I don't
defend comp, I just try to show why your methodology to criticize comp
is not valid.
To fight this seduction,
You beg the question. You are the one creating an enemy here. Just
from your prejudice and lack of reflexion on machines.
Sometimes an enemy creates themselves.
That is weird for an enemy about which you reject the autonomy.
we must use what is our birthright as living beings. We can be
opportunistic, we can cheat, and lie, and unplug machines whenever
we want, because that is what makes us superior to recorded logic.
We are alive, so we get to do whatever we want to that which is not
alive.
Here you are more than invalid. You are frightening.
We have compared you to racist, and what you say now reminds me of
the strategy used by Nazy to "prove" that the white caucasian were
superior. Lies, lies and lies.
We can lie, machines can lie, but I am not sure it is the best
science, or the best politics.
With comp, God = Truth, and lies are Devil's play.
If there is a chance that a machine will be born that is like me,
only billions of times more capable and more racist than I am
against all forms of life, wouldn't you say that it would be worth
trying to stop at all costs?
Should we prevent human birth because it might lead to people like
Hitler?
You are pushing the precaution principle too far.
But thanks for warning us about the way you proceed.
This does not help for your case,
I am just the beginning. Your sun in law will make me seem like
Snoopy.
Your negative idea can been used by less scrupulous people I'm afraid.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
