On 09 Feb 2014, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
> What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p?
3p = the content of the diary of the guy which observes the
teleportation experience.
So 3p is the stuff that I see and 1p is the stuff you see. But the
words "I" and "you" can be and ofter are reversed leading to
contradictory definitions; as I said originally it is not at all
clear what "p" means.
What is unclear. Those are infinitely complex notion, so we proceed
semi-axiomatically (in UDA), we don't need to be more precise than
what is needed to go forward in the reasoning.
> 1p = the content of the diary of the guy who enter actually the
teleportation box.
And what is the unique consistent definition of " the 1p" after the
duplication has been performed?
For the guy in M, it is the the content of the diary, and so it is is
bet in "Helsinki" followed by the result he got when opening the door.
For the guy in W, it is the same definition, but obviously, the
content is different.
The 1p is not unique in the 3-1 view, but is unique in all 1p view.
In the iterated duplication, the 3_1 view is the set of 1-views, each
characterized by a sequence of W and M in their personsal diary.
I don't see any problem.
>> if you believe that and if you are a logical person then you must
also believe that the Turing Test can detect consciousness too and
not just intelligence.
> That does not follow.
Like hell it doesn't! Evolution can't see anything that the Turing
Test can't, both only deal in observable behavior. Evolution didn't
know or care if Homo habilis was conscious of the Saber Toothed
Tiger in the bushes nor did it care if it intended to survive its
attack or not, it only cared if it did or didn't, it only cared if
it lived long enough to have offspring or if it didn't.
Evolution don't care even of that. But it works through that, and so
might care on consciousness as it can help the predator and the prey
is their respective goal and motivation.
Consciousness is related to an instinctive bet in some reality,
accompanies by a persistent confirmation iteration related to the
sense, or more generally the output of the cerebral stem.
Consciousness is needed for making sense of pleasant and unpleasant,
and accelerate the speed of the anticipation.
We cannot detect it, nor can be detect intelligence. We can detect
competence, relatively to a domain.
Intelligence and consciousness are logical descendent of consistency,
and for machine as complex as ourself we can't detect consistency
either.
> In fact if there were an effective criteria for consciousness, it
would be simple to build a zombie satisfying that criteria.
If intelligent zombies could be built then Evolution would have
built them and never bothered with consciousness, but in my case it
most certainly did produce consciousness and perhaps in your case
too; therefore the only logical conclusion to make is that
consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of intelligence.
I can agree with that. Even a product of life, but it has its role at
some level, and it exists in arithmetical at the start. The evolution
and the physics behind are universal numbers bet on local (above the
substitution level) and global (below substitution) universal neighbors.
The only way to avoid this conclusion is if Darwin was wrong. I
don't think Darwin was wrong. I don't thing the Earth is flat either.
I have no problem with Darwin.
Comp extends Darwin on the physical laws. The 1p selects them in a
sort of competition between all universal numbers.
Here consciousness has some role too, but most of it can be explained
by 3p self-reference.
To get this, though, you need steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
> What can happen is that the behavior of some conscious being can
be such that living long enough with a conscious creature, in some
reach of your emotion spectrum, you can develop empathy.
That's too vague, you need to explain how that could "develop" and
Darwin can.
I have no problem with that. It is the spirit of comp, and molecular
biology can be said to have confirmed this. That's was my starting
point.
Because of random variation some animals have more empathy than
others, empathy changes behavior and it could be that those with
more empathy have more reproductive success, if so then the gene or
genes for empathy would become more common in the gene pool. But
none of this could work if the feeling of empathy didn't change
behavior because just like the Turing Test all Evolution can see is
behavior.
No problem.
>> Apparently you think the distinction between Evolution producing
consciousness and Evolution "just" (JUST?!!) making consciousness
possible is important. I do not.
> The distinction is that in one case evolution somehow produce or
create consciousness, and in the second case, evoulition does not
create consciousness, but creates the condition of some possible
manifestation of it.
Apparently you think the distinction between Evolution creating
consciousness and Evolution creating " the condition of some
possible manifestation of it" is important. I do not.
But you have to if you accept comp, as you do. or you need to find a
flaw in the UDA. (Not just faking a confusion between 1p and 3p notion
before finishing the thought experience).
You need to put some magic in matter to prevent the universal numbers
to confuse a reifed physical reality from the one arising from the FPI
on arithmetic.
> If you assume comp [blah blah]
I don't.
Of course you do. You have no problem with step 0, 1, 2. You just stop
at step 3, for reason which have convinced nobody.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
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.
