subject:"Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence"

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:


To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical  
universe
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a  
infinite

quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the  
comp

theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop
your theory.

Nope. I am not saying that is the case (though I do believe that such
entanglement exists), I am just saying that COMP does not exclude  
that

possibility. Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself)  
may

itself be not be emulable in the sense that your reasoning requires.
I remind you, COMP does not say we are digital, it says that a  
correctly
implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/ 
body. It
does not say that this can't require some non-digital component  
(you are

still getting an artificial brain/body).


I think this is why Bruno sometimes allows that the level of  
substitution may not only be low (molecular, quantum,...) but also  
extensive: local Earth envrionment, galaxy, universe,...  But when  
you consider extensive 'substitution' it just turns into saying the  
universe is computable.


Only in the case the substitution is so low and so extensive that you  
need the whole universe (observable or not).


Now, if that is the case, that has do be proved in Z1* or justified  
from some arithmetical variant of G and G* (self-reference logic).  
Even if that is true, which I doubt personally, physics is still an  
internal emerging pattern in arithmetic.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-10 Thread benjayk

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)
can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this
doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
Thesis.
I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.

To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical universe
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a infinite
quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the comp
theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop
your theory.
Nope. I am not saying that is the case (though I do believe that such
entanglement exists), I am just saying that COMP does not exclude that
possibility. Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself) may
itself be not be emulable in the sense that your reasoning requires.
I remind you, COMP does not say we are digital, it says that a correctly
implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/body. It
does not say that this can't require some non-digital component (you are
still getting an artificial brain/body).

benjayk

--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34413398.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 10 Sep 2012, at 16:57, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)
can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this
doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate
Church

Thesis.

I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.

This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of
generalized

brain.

It does, because you can't simulate indefinite entanglement. No
matter how
many entangled systems you simulate, you are always missing the
entanglement
of this combined system to another (which may be as crucial as the
system
itself, because it may lead to a very different unfoldment of
events).

To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical
universe
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a
infinite

quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the
comp

theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop
your theory.

Nope. I am not saying that is the case (though I do believe that such
entanglement exists), I am just saying that COMP does not exclude that
possibility.

?
Comp exclude infinite Eden.

Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself)
may

itself be not be emulable in the sense that your reasoning requires.

Indeed, it can't.

I remind you, COMP does not say we are digital, it says that a
correctly

implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/body.

OK.

It
does not say that this can't require some non-digital component (you
are

still getting an artificial brain/body).

Indeed, that is a consequence of comp.

Bruno

benjayk

--
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/

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-10 Thread meekerdb

On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)
can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this
doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
Thesis.

I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.

This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of generalized
brain.

Nope. I am not saying that is the case (though I do believe that such
entanglement exists), I am just saying that COMP does not exclude that
possibility. Whether or not some digital substitution exists, what is
required to correctly implement it (which also is part of yourself) may
itself be not be emulable in the sense that your reasoning requires.
I remind you, COMP does not say we are digital, it says that a correctly
implemented digital substitution may substitute my current brain/body. It
does not say that this can't require some non-digital component (you are
still getting an artificial brain/body).

I think this is why Bruno sometimes allows that the level of substitution may not only be
low (molecular, quantum,...) but also extensive: local Earth envrionment, galaxy,
universe,... But when you consider extensive 'substitution' it just turns into saying the
universe is computable.

Brent

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-09 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:




Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:




Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)  
can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this  
doesn't

entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.


The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
Thesis.

I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.


This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of generalized
brain.
It does, because you can't simulate indefinite entanglement. No  
matter how
many entangled systems you simulate, you are always missing the  
entanglement
of this combined system to another (which may be as crucial as the  
system

itself, because it may lead to a very different unfoldment of events).


To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical universe  
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a infinite  
quantum pattern, and that *you* are that pattern.
In that case, you are just working in a different theory than the comp  
theory, and are out of the scope of my expertize. But then develop  
your theory.






A practically digital substitution (which is assumed in COMP) could be
entangled with its surroundings, which may be very different than the
entanglement of a brain (or a generalized brain) with its  
surroundings. The
substitution may not only fail because the person itself is not  
preserved,
but also because the world was not preserved (the person would  
certainly
complain to the doctor if the world suddenly is substantially  
different - if

there is still a doctor left, that is).
And if you say that we can simulate this entanglement as well, the
entanglement of this system to outside systems may again lead to the
emulation to be not correct at all from a broader view (etc...). At  
every

step the emulation may actually become more false, because more of the
multiverse/universe is changed.

We can argue that all these things may not be relevant (though I  
think they

are), but in any case it makes the reasoning shaky.


Not at all. You might say arithmetic is false as it postulate that 0  
has no predecessor, and we all know that 0 has a predecessor, namely -1.


But then you are not working in arithmetic, but in the theory of  
integers.


It is like being upset on an ophthalmologist because he cannot cure  
your toothache.






Bruno Marchal wrote:




No matter how good your simulation is, it is never going to change  
its

surroundings without using I/O.


QM does not allows this, unless you bring by the collapse of the  
wave.

Clearly QM does allow that measurement in one object changes another
object (we can argue with the word change, because the effect is
non-causal). This is even experimentally verified.
MW doesn't change this, it is the same with regards to correlations  
between

classically non-interacting objects.


 Actually what you say is not correct, but is also out of my topics,  
as QM is not assumed in the comp theory, but has to be retrieved from  
it, if correct.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
Thesis.
I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their

surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.

This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of generalized
brain.

The computational model just doesn't describe that, because it in it
there
is no way for one computation to affect another computation (or
something

else) without using input/output.

Yet in QM this is possible through entanglement.

I don't assume QM. And comp confirms the existence of entanglement,
even if quantitively many open problems subsist. My goal was to make
this precise, or more precise.

No matter how good your simulation is, it is never going to change its
surroundings without using I/O.

QM does not allows this, unless you bring by the collapse of the wave.
With comp and QM-without-collapse (MW), entanglement are partitioning
of the multi-dreams.

Bruno

benjayk

--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34402425.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.

I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.

I try not to use that  word (God) but sometimes forget.


I can see that. No problem if it is an accepted fuzzy pointer on our  
ignorance. Big problem if you reify it into a final explanation. I  
like the term cosmic, but only as poetry. The cosmos existence is  
an open problem for me.


Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; +  
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it  
is equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall  
in the authoritative trap.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed,  
why haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience  
does He come up with?



The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a  
question.


Nor does Arithmetical Truth.

God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it  
inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?

Bruno





 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and  
potato peeler and people laugh about that, but using the exact  
same organ for both excretory and reproductive purposes does not  
seem very intelligent to me either, much less infinitely  
intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the  
retina of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass  
through them to get to the light sensitive cells also does not  
seem very smart; no engineer in his right mind would place the  
gears to move the film in a camera so that the light must pass  
through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of  
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect  
Evolution to do.


 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- 
l...@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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 07 Sep 2012, at 15:45, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

What is UD ?


Universal Dovetailer.

Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:


Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.


The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church  
Thesis.





A computational description of the brain is just a relative,  
approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the  
brain is or

what it does.


The bet the computationalists do, is that nature has already build  
an emulator, through the brain, and that's why a computer might be  
able to emulate its programming, by nature, evolution, etc. And we  
can copy it without understanding, like a virus can copy a file  
without understanding of its content.


Molecular biology is already digital relatively to chemistry. Don't  
take this as argument for comp, but as showing your argument against  
is not valid.


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.
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

God is outside of spacetime (in uncreated) , so your actions were imaginary.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-07, 16:10:00
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are the 
 number one defender of the Christian's conception of God. 

OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.

Incidentally when I went out to my car today I found that I that a flat God, so 
I jacked up the car, got a spare God out of my trunk and took the punctured God 
off the axle and put on the spare God. I think the old God has a nail in it so 
I'm going to take it to the God repair shop to see if they can remove it and 
put a patch on the old God so I'll still have a spare God.? 

?ohn 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Nobody has to believe anything I say.
I thought that was a given.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-08, 04:44:44
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.

I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.

I try not to use that  word (God) but sometimes forget. 


I can see that. No problem if it is an accepted fuzzy pointer on our ignorance. 
Big problem if you reify it into a final explanation. I like the term cosmic, 
but only as poetry. The cosmos existence is an open problem for me.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; + 
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is 
equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall in the 
authoritative trap.


Bruno








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 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.



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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:

Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of generalized
brain.
It does, because you can't simulate indefinite entanglement. No matter how
many entangled systems you simulate, you are always missing the entanglement
of this combined system to another (which may be as crucial as the system
itself, because it may lead to a very different unfoldment of events).
A practically digital substitution (which is assumed in COMP) could be
entangled with its surroundings, which may be very different than the
entanglement of a brain (or a generalized brain) with its surroundings. The
substitution may not only fail because the person itself is not preserved,
but also because the world was not preserved (the person would certainly
complain to the doctor if the world suddenly is substantially different - if
there is still a doctor left, that is).
And if you say that we can simulate this entanglement as well, the
entanglement of this system to outside systems may again lead to the
emulation to be not correct at all from a broader view (etc...). At every
step the emulation may actually become more false, because more of the
multiverse/universe is changed.

We can argue that all these things may not be relevant (though I think they
are), but in any case it makes the reasoning shaky.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

No matter how good your simulation is, it is never going to change its
surroundings without using I/O.

QM does not allows this, unless you bring by the collapse of the wave.
Clearly QM does allow that measurement in one object changes another
object (we can argue with the word change, because the effect is
non-causal). This is even experimentally verified.
MW doesn't change this, it is the same with regards to correlations between
classically non-interacting objects.

benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34406812.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread Stephen P. King


On 9/8/2012 10:08 AM, benjayk wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:



Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:


Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church
Thesis.

I am not talking about quantum computers, which are not entangled
with their
surroundings.
I am talking about systems that are entangled to other systems.

This is just lowering the comp level of substitution. It does not
change the reasoning, thanks to the use of the notion of generalized
brain.

It does, because you can't simulate indefinite entanglement. No matter how
many entangled systems you simulate, you are always missing the entanglement
of this combined system to another (which may be as crucial as the system
itself, because it may lead to a very different unfoldment of events).
A practically digital substitution (which is assumed in COMP) could be
entangled with its surroundings, which may be very different than the
entanglement of a brain (or a generalized brain) with its surroundings. The
substitution may not only fail because the person itself is not preserved,
but also because the world was not preserved (the person would certainly
complain to the doctor if the world suddenly is substantially different - if
there is still a doctor left, that is).
And if you say that we can simulate this entanglement as well, the
entanglement of this system to outside systems may again lead to the
emulation to be not correct at all from a broader view (etc...). At every
step the emulation may actually become more false, because more of the
multiverse/universe is changed.

We can argue that all these things may not be relevant (though I think they
are), but in any case it makes the reasoning shaky.


Hi,

Does not entanglement not look like a form of diagonalization?



Bruno Marchal wrote:

No matter how good your simulation is, it is never going to change its
surroundings without using I/O.

QM does not allows this, unless you bring by the collapse of the wave.

Clearly QM does allow that measurement in one object changes another
object (we can argue with the word change, because the effect is
non-causal). This is even experimentally verified.
MW doesn't change this, it is the same with regards to correlations between
classically non-interacting objects.

benjayk



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.

I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.

I try not to use that  word (God) but sometimes forget. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; + 
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is 
equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall in the 
authoritative trap.


Bruno








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 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.



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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

What is UD ?



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:


Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.



The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church Thesis.





A computational description of the brain is just a relative, approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the brain is or
what it does.



The bet the computationalists do, is that nature has already build an emulator, 
through the brain, and that's why a computer might be able to emulate its 
programming, by nature, evolution, etc. And we can copy it without 
understanding, like a virus can copy a file without understanding of its 
content.


Molecular biology is already digital relatively to chemistry. Don't take this 
as argument for comp, but as showing your argument against is not valid.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the
 fundamental notion of infinite.


No, the fundamental notion of the infinite is that you can make a one to
one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

 The net result of Turing’s specification is that the tape is  infinite


If the machine comes to a halt then a finite amount of tape is sufficient
to get its work done, if it does not halt then even a infinite amount of
tape would not be sufficient. Turing proved that there is no general way to
tell in advance one case from the other.

  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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
 haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
 up with?


  The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
 question.


Interesting, so I was mistaken in thinking that God can do anything and in
fact the neoplatonists can order God around; but if God has been instructed
not to worry His little head over such questions then He really doesn't
have much to do. Apparently God (or rather the neoplatonist) have given
control of the Universe over to Physics; and having never had anything to
do I guess God just does what He always does and watches TV and eats potato
chips all day. God is a pretty dull unimportant fellow, I can't understand
why philosophers are so obsessed with such a nonentity.

 Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Yes absolutely, I'm defending the four year old kid's concept of Santa
Claus too because I think it might be useful if the words  God and Santa
Claus mean something, otherwise when I say I don't believe in either it
would not convey any information to anyone about what I believe or don't
believe.

  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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are
 the number one defender of the Christian's conception of God.


OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.

Incidentally when I went out to my car today I found that I that a flat
God, so I jacked up the car, got a spare God out of my trunk and took the
punctured God off the axle and put on the spare God. I think the old God
has a nail in it so I'm going to take it to the God repair shop to see if
they can remove it and put a patch on the old God so I'll still have a
spare God.

 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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread Stephen P. King


On 9/7/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that
atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's conception
of God.


OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.

Incidentally when I went out to my car today I found that I that a 
flat God, so I jacked up the car, got a spare God out of my trunk and 
took the punctured God off the axle and put on the spare God. I think 
the old God has a nail in it so I'm going to take it to the God repair 
shop to see if they can remove it and put a patch on the old God so 
I'll still have a spare God.


 John K Clark



Hi John,

It must be fun to be you! ;-) What would we do without your sharp 
wit, the world would be a boring place. :_(


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread benjayk

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.

A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine
functions, it
can react dynamically to the brain, it can grow, it can heal, it can
become
infected, etc...

That is correct but not relevant. People do survive with pump at the
place of the heart, but of course not perfectly, and have some
problems through it. This is due to the fact the substitution level is
crude for technical reason. That will be the case with artificial
brain or parts of the brain, for a very long time, but is not relevant
with the issue which assume only truth in principle.
In any case, an artificial heart is not digital, and the substituted brain
can also not be digital (according to your reasoning), which contradicts the
assumption that there can be a digital substitution.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

And then another, much bigger step is required in order to say
*everything*/everyone/every part can be emulated.

Indeed. Comp makes this impossible, as the environment is the result
of a comptetion between infinities of universal machine in
arithmetic.
See my other post to you sent yesterday.
Yes, OK, I understand that.
But this also means that COMP relies on the assumption that whatever
is not
emulable about our brains (or whatever else) does not matter at all
to what
we (locally) are, only what is emulable matters. I find this
assumption
completely unwarranted and I have yet to see evidence for it or a
reasoning
behind it.

It is a theory. The evidence for it is that, except for matter itself,
non computability has not been observed in nature.
But nature is made of lots of matter, so how can you simply dismiss that as
not relevant?

Bruno Marchal wrote:

It is also hard to make sense of darwinian evolution in a non computable
framework, as it
makes also hard to understand the redundant nature of the brain, and
the fact that we are stable for brain perturbations.
I don't see at all why this would be the case. Stability and redundancy may
exist beyond computations as well. Why not?

Bruno Marchal wrote:

If you invoke something as elusive as a non computable effect in the
brain (beyond the 1p itself which is not computable for any machine
from her point of view), you have to give us an evidence that such
thing exists. Is it in the neocortex, in the limbic system, in the
cerebral stem, in the right brain?
Again, everywhere. The very fact that the brain is made of neurons is not
computable, because computation does not take structure into account (it
doesn't differentiate between different instantiations). And for all we
know, the structure of the brain *does* matter. It is heavily used in all
attempts to explain its functioning.
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.

A computational description of the brain is just a relative, approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the brain is or
what it does.

benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34397010.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread Richard Ruquist

If the digital substitution is at the density of 10^90 pixels per
cubic centimeter,
as found in string theory, then digital substitution is essentially analog.
Richard

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

And then another, much bigger step is required in order to say
*everything*/everyone/every part can be emulated.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

A computational description of the brain is just a relative, approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the brain is or
what it does.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi Roger,

I know, Roger. I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling  
that atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's  
conception of God. Your's is obviously closer to Plato and the general  
machine's theology.

It is bit sad you don't listen to what the machines already can tell us.
You can interpret the work of Gödel, Löb, ... Solovay, as a initial  
interview of the ideally correct self-referential machine. The modal  
logics G and G* axiomatize the propositional logics of such  
discourses.  G* includes the machine's silence, which are rather  
important for the 'mystical' part of the universal machine.


I will be direct. In your post you defend truth and vocabulary, where  
I prefer hypothesis, reasoning and testing. Especially in theology.


Bruno


On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:07, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I've been defending cosmic intelligence (CI)
or Cosmic Mind,  of Life , not the christian God, not
the whole shebang, the Trinity.
But actually I think they're probably all the same.


CI was there before the world was created-- for sure,
else the world could not have
been  created. But since CI created time and space
the argument is irrevant.  And I don't know
what God can think, that much is Christian.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed,  
why haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience  
does He come up with?



The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a  
question.


Nor does Arithmetical Truth.

God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it  
inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?

Bruno





 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and  
potato peeler and people laugh about that, but using the exact same  
organ for both excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem  
very intelligent to me either, much less infinitely intelligent.  
And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina of the eye  
in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get  
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no  
engineer in his right mind would place the gears to move the film  
in a camera so that the light must pass through the gears before  
hitting the film. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect God to  
do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to do.


 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- 
l...@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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; +  
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is  
equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall in  
the authoritative trap.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed,  
why haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience  
does He come up with?



The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a  
question.


Nor does Arithmetical Truth.

God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it  
inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?

Bruno





 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and  
potato peeler and people laugh about that, but using the exact same  
organ for both excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem  
very intelligent to me either, much less infinitely intelligent.  
And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina of the eye  
in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get  
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no  
engineer in his right mind would place the gears to move the film  
in a camera so that the light must pass through the gears before  
hitting the film. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect God to  
do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to do.


 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- 
l...@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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:


Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.


The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church  
Thesis.





A computational description of the brain is just a relative,  
approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the  
brain is or

what it does.


The bet the computationalists do, is that nature has already build an  
emulator, through the brain, and that's why a computer might be able  
to emulate its programming, by nature, evolution, etc. And we can copy  
it without understanding, like a virus can copy a file without  
understanding of its content.


Molecular biology is already digital relatively to chemistry. Don't  
take this as argument for comp, but as showing your argument against  
is not valid.


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.
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-05 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I've been defending cosmic intelligence (CI)
or Cosmic Mind,  of Life , not the christian God, not 
the whole shebang, the Trinity.  
But actually I think they're probably all the same.


CI was there before the world was created-- for sure,  
else the world could not have
been  created. But since CI created time and space 
the argument is irrevant.  And I don't know
what God can think, that much is Christian. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:24, benjayk wrote:




Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:




Bruno Marchal wrote:




If you disagree, please tell me why.


I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this
is
speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in
nature.



You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any
living
system that functions the same as the original.


This is not a valid argument. I have never seen a man walking on  
Mars,

but this does not make it impossible.
No, but we have no big gaps of belief to bridge if we consider a man  
walking

on Mars. It's not much different than the moon.
Yet emulating a natural system is something which we haven't even  
remotely

suceeded in.


But this confirms comp, as comp predicts that material system are not  
emulable, only simulable. Only digital being can be emulated, and comp  
assume that we are digital, unlike our bodies.





Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.


A pump does the function of an heart.


We also substituted some parts with non-living matter, but not with  
a mere

computer.


Comp does not say that we do that, nor even that we can do that. Only  
that it can be done in principle.





And then another, much bigger step is required in order to say
*everything*/everyone/every part can be emulated.


Indeed. Comp makes this impossible, as the environment is the result  
of a comptetion between infinities of universal machine in arithmetic.  
See my other post to you sent  yesterday.





It is like saying that we
can walk on all things, because we can walk on the moon. We most  
certainly

can't walk on the sun, though.


Sure.

Bruno






Bruno Marchal wrote:


With comp we cannot emulate a rock, so we can't certainly emulate a
living creature, as it is made of the apparent matter, which needs
the complete UD*.

But with comp all universal machine can emulate any universal  
machine,

so if I am a program, at some levcel of description, the activity of
that program, responsible for my consciousness here and now, can be
emulated exactly.
But why would you be a program? Why would you be more finite than a  
rock? I

can't follow your logic behind this.
Yes, assuming COMP your reasoning makes some sense, but then we are
confronted with the absurd situation of our local me's being  
computational,

yet everything we can actually observe being non-computational.



Bruno Marchal wrote:




The default position is that it is not emulable.


On the contrary. Having no evidence that there is something non  
Turing

emulable playing a role in the working mind,
We do have evidence. We can't even make sense of the notion of  
emulating

what is inherently indeterminate (like all matter, and so the brain as
well). How to emulate something which has no determinate state with  
machines

using (practically) determinate states?
We can emulate quantum computers, but they still work based on
definite/discrete states (though it allows for superposition of  
them, but

they are collapsed at the end of the computation).

Even according to COMP, it seems that matter is non-emulable. That  
this
doesn't play a role in the working of the brain is just an  
assumption (I
hope we agree there is a deep relation between local mind and  
brain). When
we actually look into the brain we can't find anything that says  
whatever

is going on that is not emulable doesn't matter.


Bruno Marchal wrote:


beyond its material constitution which by comp is only Turing  
recoverable

in the limit
(and thus non emulable)
But that is the point. Why would its material constitution not  
matter? For
all we know it matters very much, as the behaviour of the matter in  
the

brain (and outside of it) determines its function.


Bruno Marchal wrote:


to bet that we are not machine is like
speculating on something quite bizarre, just to segregationate
negatively a class of entities.

I don't know what you arguing against. I have never negatively
segregationated any entity. It is just that computers can't do  
everything
humans can, just as adults can't do everything children can (or vice  
versa)
or plants can't do everything animals do (and vice versa) or life  
can't do

what lifeless matter does (and vice versa).
I have never postulated some moral hierarchy in there (though  
computers
don't seem to mind always doing what they are told to do, which we  
might

consider slavery, but that is just human bias).

Also, I don't speculate on us not being machines. We have no a  
priori reason
to assume we are machines in the first place, anymore than we have a  
reason

to assume we are plants.


Bruno Marchal wrote:


This is almost akin to saying that the Indians have no souls, as if
they would, they would know about Jesus, or

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:




 From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

 God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence

And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be)
then the human race is God.

 or life itself.

If as you say God is life then we know 2 things:

1) God exists.

2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in
the idea of God.

 As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created,

I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the
limitations of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do
and why He can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I
have no doubt He would be even more interested in how He works than I am.
And if the God theory can not even come close to explain one bit of that
(and it can't) then it has not explained anything at all, it just adds
pointless wheels within wheels that accomplish absolutely nothing.

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

No, God created the human race.
So the human race cannot be God.

IMHO God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 
behind/before/beyond/within Creation itself. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:20:44
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence





On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:





From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
 God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence 
And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be) then 
the human race is God. 
 or life itself. 
If as you say God is life then we know 2 things:
1) God exists.
2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in the 
idea of God.
 As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, 
I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the limitations 
of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do and why He 
can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I have no doubt He 
would be even more interested in how He works than I am. And if the God theory 
can not even come close to explain one bit of that (and it can't) then it has 
not explained anything at all, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels that 
accomplish absolutely nothing.
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.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:

 Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.


Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
might not be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to
show independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem
then that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of
digits play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if
this new physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd
know that nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the
word  if  a lot in all that.

   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.

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread William R. Buckley

Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 

 Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.


Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there might not
be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to show
independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem then
that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of digits
play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if this new
physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd know that
nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the word  if  a
lot in all that.

   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.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com

 Seems funny that Turing “…assumed that machines could not operate with
 infinite numbers…” given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.


Not really infinite but it has no boundaries, it can always extend if
needed. At any given time the used tape is of finite length.

Quentin


 

 ** **

 wrb

 ** **

 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence*
 ***

 ** **

 On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 ** **

  Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.***
 *


 Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
 with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
 might not be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to
 show independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem
 then that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of
 digits play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if
 this new physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd
 know that nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the
 word  if  a lot in all that.

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.

 --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God created the human race.


And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?

 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence


There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler
and people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both
excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me
either, much less infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and
nerves for the retina of the eye in front not in the back so the light must
pass through them to get to the light sensitive cells also does not seem
very smart; no engineer in his right mind would place the gears to move the
film in a camera so that the light must pass through the gears before
hitting the film. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect God to do, but
it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to do.

 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.

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread William R. Buckley

While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the
fundamental notion of infinite.  One can hardly 

take a set of LARGE size (like half of the infinite set) and, say by
weighing or by volumetric scale, determine if it is different 

from any truly infinite set.  The point you make is a subjective one.  The
net result of Turing's specification is that the tape is 

infinite, effective (functional) though the definition may be.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

 

2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com

Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.


Not really infinite but it has no boundaries, it can always extend if
needed. At any given time the used tape is of finite length.

Quentin
 

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 

 Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.


Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there might not
be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to show
independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem then
that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of digits
play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if this new
physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd know that
nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the word  if  a
lot in all that.

   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.

-- 
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
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Well, the fact that at *any* moment the tape is of finite length explains
why it can't handle *infinite* numbers... there is nothing funny about that.

Quentin

2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com

 While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is
 the fundamental notion of infinite.  One can hardly 

 take a set of LARGE size (like half of the infinite set) and, say by
 weighing or by volumetric scale, determine if it is different 

 from any truly infinite set.  The point you make is a subjective one.  The
 net result of Turing’s specification is that the tape is 

 infinite, effective (functional) though the definition may be.

 ** **

 wrb

 ** **

 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Quentin Anciaux
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:10 AM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence*
 ***

 ** **

 ** **

 2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com

 Seems funny that Turing “…assumed that machines could not operate with
 infinite numbers…” given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.


 Not really infinite but it has no boundaries, it can always extend if
 needed. At any given time the used tape is of finite length.

 Quentin
  

  

 wrb

  

 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence*
 ***

  

 On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

  

  Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.***
 *


 Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
 with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
 might not be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to
 show independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem
 then that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of
 digits play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if
 this new physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd
 know that nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the
 word  if  a lot in all that.

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.

 --
 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.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

 --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread benjayk

John Clark-12 wrote:

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:

Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.

Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
might not be) and if you know it and if you can use nothing but that to
show independently of Turing that no machine can solve the Halting Problem
then that would prove that irrational numbers with a infinite number of
digits play no part in the operation of the universe; on the other hand if
this new physical theory shows you how to make such a machine then we'd
know that nature understands and uses infinity. I admit that I used the
word if a lot in all that.

Even the usual computer can use infinite numbers, like omega. Really going
from 1 to omega is no more special or difficult than going from 1 to 2. We
just don't do it that often because it (apparently) isn't of much use.
Transfinite numbers mostly don't express much more than finite numbers, or
at least we haven't really found the use for them.

Irrational numbers don't really have digits. We just approximately display
them using digits. Computers can also reason with irrational numbers (for
example computer algebra systems can find irrational solutions of equations
and express them precisely using terms like sqrt(n) ).

With regards to nature, it seems that it in some ways it does use irrational
numbers. Look at the earth and tell me that it has nothing to do with pi. It
is true though that it doesn't use precise irrational numbers, but there
doesn't seem to exist anything totally precise in nature at all - precision
is just an abstraction.

So according to your standard, clearly nature is infinite, because we can
calculate using transfinite numbers.
But of course this is a quite absurd conclusion, mainly because what we
really mean by infinite has nothing to do with mathematically describable
infinities like big ordinal or cardinal numbers. With regards to our
intuitive notion of infiniteness, these are pretty finite, just like all
other numbers.
What we usually mean by infinite means more something like (absolutely)
boundless or incompletable or inexhaustable or unbound or absolute.
All of these have little do with what we can measure or describe and thus it
falls outside the realm of science or math. We can only observe that we
can't find a boundary to space, or an end of time, or an end to math, but it
is hard to say how this could be made precise or how to falsify it (I'd say
it is impossible).

My take on it is simply that the infinite is too absolute to be scrutinized.
You can't falsify something which can't be conceived to be otherwise. It's
literally impossible to imagine something like an absolute boundary
(absolute finiteness). It is a nonsense concept. Nature simply is inherently
infinite and the finite is simply an expression of the infinite, and is
itself also the infinite (like the number 1 also has infinity in it
1=1*1*1*1*1*1*1* ).

benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34388985.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread benjayk

Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.

A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine functions, it
can react dynamically to the brain, it can grow, it can heal, it can become
infected, etc...

Bruno Marchal wrote:

And then another, much bigger step is required in order to say
*everything*/everyone/every part can be emulated.

Indeed. Comp makes this impossible, as the environment is the result
of a comptetion between infinities of universal machine in arithmetic.
See my other post to you sent yesterday.
Yes, OK, I understand that.
But this also means that COMP relies on the assumption that whatever is not
emulable about our brains (or whatever else) does not matter at all to what
we (locally) are, only what is emulable matters. I find this assumption
completely unwarranted and I have yet to see evidence for it or a reasoning
behind it.

benjayk

--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34389041.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence or life itself. 
As to what he can do, there are some limitations
in the world he created, for that world is contingent
and so contains some missing pieces, misfits, defects, all of that stuff. 
Crap happens.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 12:28:15
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:? 

?
 God is necessary because He runs the whole show. 

And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the 
whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How do 
my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have become 
adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains that if you 
can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains absolutely 
positively nothing. ? 

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk

Bruno Marchal wrote:

If you disagree, please tell me why.

I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this is
speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in nature.

You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any living
system that functions the same as the original.

The default position is that it is not emulable. We have no a priori reason
to assume we can substitute one thing with another thing of an entirely
different class. We have no more reason to assume that we can substitute a
brain with an emulation of a brain than we have that we can substitute a
building with a drawing of a building - even if it is so accurate that the
illusion of it being a building is perfect at first glance. You still can't
live in a drawing.

Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Measurements just can't yield infinity.
It is like the natural numbers. You can't see that there are infinitely many
of them by using examples. You just have to realize it is inherent to
natural numbers that there's always another one (eg the successor).
In the same way, nature can only be seen to be infinite by realizing it is
an inherent property of it. There simply is no such thing as complete
finitiness. No thing in nature has any absolute boundary seperating it from
space, and there is no end to space - the notion of an end of space itself
seems to be empty.
We approach the limits of science here, as we leave the realm of the
quantifiable and objectifiable, so frankly your statement just seems like
scientism to me.
From a mystical perspective (which can provide a useful fundament for
science), it can be quite self-evident that everything that exists is
infinite (even the finite is just a form of the infinite).

A more pratical question would be how / in which form does infinity express
in nature?. Of course this is an unlimited question, but I see some aspects
of nature that can't be framed in terms of something finite.
First uncertainty / indeterminateness. It might be that nature is inherently
indeterminate (principle like heisenbergs uncertainty relation suggest it
from a scientific perspective) and thus can't be captured by any particular
description. So it is not emulable, because emulability rests on the premise
that what is emulated can be precisely captured (otherwise we have no way of
telling the computer what to do).
Secondly entaglement. If all of existence is entangled and it is infinite in
scope then everything that exists has an aspect of infiniteness (because you
can't make sense of it apart from the rest of existence). Even tiny changes
in very small systems might me non-locally magnified to an abitrary degree
in other things/realms. This means that entanglement can't be truly
simulated, because every simulation would be incomplete (because the state
of the system depends on infinitely many other things, which we can't ALL
simulate) and thus critically wrong at the right level.
It might be possible to simulate the behaviour of the system outwardly, but
this would be only superficial since the system would be (relatively) cut
off from the transcendental realm that connects it to the rest of existence.

For example if someone's brain is substituted he may behave similarily to
the original (though I think this would be quite superficial), but he won't
be connected to the universal field of experiencing in the same way -
because at some level his emulation is only approximate which may not matter
much on earth, but will matter in heaven or the beyond (which is what
counts, ulitmately).

benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34383078.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:




Bruno Marchal wrote:




If you disagree, please tell me why.


I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this  
is
speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in  
nature.




You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any  
living

system that functions the same as the original.


This is not a valid argument. I have never seen a man walking on Mars,  
but this does not make it impossible.


With comp we cannot emulate a rock, so we can't certainly emulate a  
living creature, as it is made of the apparent matter, which needs  
the complete UD*.


But with comp all universal machine can emulate any universal machine,  
so if I am a program, at some levcel of description, the activity of  
that program, responsible for my consciousness here and now, can be  
emulated exactly.





The default position is that it is not emulable.


On the contrary. Having no evidence that there is something non Turing  
emulable playing a role in the working mind, beyond its material  
constitution which by comp is only Turing recoverable in the limit  
(and thus non emulable) to bet that we are not machine is like  
speculating on something quite bizarre, just to segregationate  
negatively a class of entities.


This is almost akin to saying that the Indians have no souls, as if  
they would, they would know about Jesus, or to say that the Darwinian  
theory is rather weak, as it fails to explain how God made the world  
in six day.






We have no a priori reason
to assume we can substitute one thing with another thing of an  
entirely

different class.


Nature does that all the time.
We did it already consciously when we accept a pump in place of a  
heart, or even when we just buy glasses.
Some people will accept an artificial hypo campus, just because they  
need a way to stock new long term memories, and the doctor claimed it  
is the only known way to help a patient.





We have no more reason to assume that we can substitute a
brain with an emulation of a brain than we have that we can  
substitute a

building with a drawing of a building


LISP can pass the FORTRAN test. It can emulate precisely FORTRAN. The  
very hypothesis of digitality is what makes possible the confusion of  
level, at some precise level (and below).


Nobody asks you to believe it works, but until we find a real evidence  
against comp (like a different physics), it is a matter of personal  
opinion.





- even if it is so accurate that the
illusion of it being a building is perfect at first glance. You  
still can't

live in a drawing.


The drawn people can live in a drawing. It sounds weird, because you  
have gone used the statical drawing in place of the dynamical  
emulating.


A virtual typhoon cannot make you wet, unless you have been  
virtualized before. An emulated typhon can make wet emulated people,  
with comp.


There is no contradiction as we assume that the brain, even in the  
generalized sense, is a universal emulator, so that *you* are already  
emulated by a natural organic computer.





Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.


Right.
Nor is it possible to show it is finite.
But we can do theories, and reason in those theories, and then compare  
with the observations, etc.





Measurements just can't yield infinity.
It is like the natural numbers. You can't see that there are  
infinitely many

of them by using examples.


Indeed.




You just have to realize it is inherent to
natural numbers that there's always another one (eg the successor).
In the same way, nature can only be seen to be infinite by realizing  
it is

an inherent property of it. There simply is no such thing as complete
finitiness. No thing in nature has any absolute boundary seperating  
it from
space, and there is no end to space - the notion of an end of space  
itself

seems to be empty.


Assuming space exist. But OK.




We approach the limits of science here, as we leave the realm of the
quantifiable and objectifiable, so frankly your statement just seems  
like

scientism to me.


It would be if I was pretending to defend a truth, but I am just  
humbly showing the consequence of a belief.





From a mystical perspective (which can provide a useful fundament for
science), it can be quite self-evident that everything that exists is
infinite (even the finite is just a form of the infinite).


Ha Ha !
You gently set the trap.
I can say this: if comp is true and if both you and me, and the  
readers, are consistent, then you can understand, soon or later, why  
if you are correct, you lost correctness when appealing to that  
experience of the infinite.
If not, *you* are the scientist speculating on a possibility which can  
lead to a prohibition of a entheotechnology

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk



Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 
 On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
 


 Bruno Marchal wrote:


 If you disagree, please tell me why.

 I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
 justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
 something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this  
 is
 speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in  
 nature.


 You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any  
 living
 system that functions the same as the original.
 
 This is not a valid argument. I have never seen a man walking on Mars,  
 but this does not make it impossible.
No, but we have no big gaps of belief to bridge if we consider a man walking
on Mars. It's not much different than the moon.
Yet emulating a natural system is something which we haven't even remotely
suceeded in. Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
We also substituted some parts with non-living matter, but not with a mere
computer.

And then another, much bigger step is required in order to say
*everything*/everyone/every part can be emulated. It is like saying that we
can walk on all things, because we can walk on the moon. We most certainly
can't walk on the sun, though.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 With comp we cannot emulate a rock, so we can't certainly emulate a  
 living creature, as it is made of the apparent matter, which needs  
 the complete UD*.
 
 But with comp all universal machine can emulate any universal machine,  
 so if I am a program, at some levcel of description, the activity of  
 that program, responsible for my consciousness here and now, can be  
 emulated exactly.
But why would you be a program? Why would you be more finite than a rock? I
can't follow your logic behind this.
Yes, assuming COMP your reasoning makes some sense, but then we are
confronted with the absurd situation of our local me's being computational,
yet everything we can actually observe being non-computational.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
 

 The default position is that it is not emulable.
 
 On the contrary. Having no evidence that there is something non Turing  
 emulable playing a role in the working mind,
We do have evidence. We can't even make sense of the notion of emulating
what is inherently indeterminate (like all matter, and so the brain as
well). How to emulate something which has no determinate state with machines
using (practically) determinate states?
We can emulate quantum computers, but they still work based on
definite/discrete states (though it allows for superposition of them, but
they are collapsed at the end of the computation).

Even according to COMP, it seems that matter is non-emulable. That this
doesn't play a role in the working of the brain is just an assumption (I
hope we agree there is a deep relation between local mind and brain). When
we actually look into the brain we can't find anything that says whatever
is going on that is not emulable doesn't matter.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
  beyond its material constitution which by comp is only Turing recoverable
 in the limit  
 (and thus non emulable)
But that is the point. Why would its material constitution not matter? For
all we know it matters very much, as the behaviour of the matter in the
brain (and outside of it) determines its function.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
  to bet that we are not machine is like  
 speculating on something quite bizarre, just to segregationate  
 negatively a class of entities.
I don't know what you arguing against. I have never negatively
segregationated any entity. It is just that computers can't do everything
humans can, just as adults can't do everything children can (or vice versa)
or plants can't do everything animals do (and vice versa) or life can't do
what lifeless matter does (and vice versa).
I have never postulated some moral hierarchy in there (though computers
don't seem to mind always doing what they are told to do, which we might
consider slavery, but that is just human bias).

Also, I don't speculate on us not being machines. We have no a priori reason
to assume we are machines in the first place, anymore than we have a reason
to assume we are plants.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 This is almost akin to saying that the Indians have no souls, as if  
 they would, they would know about Jesus, or to say that the Darwinian  
 theory is rather weak, as it fails to explain how God made the world  
 in six day.
I am not saying computers have no souls. Indeed, computers are just as much
awareness as everything else. There is ONLY soul. So I am not excluding or
segregating anyone or anything.
Computers are just intelligent in a different kind of way, just as indians
are different from germans in some ways (though obviously computers are far
more different to us).


Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 We have no a priori reason
 to assume we can substitute one thing with another thing of an  
 entirely
 different class.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Sep 2012, at 17:52, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

The context is the interpreter; there is no difference between the  
two: context vs. interpreter.


Usually, in computer science, the context is the environment or the  
inputs. The interpreter is more close to the thinking person being put  
in this or that context or situation.


I don't see the necessity to identify them. It seems confusing to me.




Also, as we humans are want to do,


?



if you have no definition, then you have no grasp.


?

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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.  
I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many  
marbles they are.


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.



I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases  
an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated  
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the  
marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or  
read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan  
underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no  
possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of  
behaviors. No mind, just machine.


To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.


It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon  
robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon  
based set of molecules can write english poems ...










Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,  
I find that suspicious, to be frank.


I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility  
of computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o  
is.


?





Why does anything need to leave Platonia?


OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again,  
this beg the question: why do you think anything has even leave  
Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some angle/ 
pov).





How does encoding come to be a possibility


Because it exists provably once you assume addition and  
multiplication, already assumed by all scientists.




and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language  
of arithmetic truth).


?
Why should it be useful?

Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful?



Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy model of realism which  
is then passed off as genuine by lack of counterfactual proof - but  
proof defined only by the narrow confines of the toy model itself.  
It is the blind man proving that nobody can see by demanding that  
sight be put into the terms of blindness.


You don't give a clue why it would be like that, except building on  
the gap between 1 and 3 view, but my point is that universal machine  
or numbers are already astonished by such gap. They can only say that  
they live it without being able to justify it, nor even to define  
precisely what their 1-view can be, until they bet on mechanism, and  
understand (already) why it has to be like that.


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.
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

From the standpoint of Leibniz's metaphysics,
God is necessary because He runs the whole
show. In that case, the concept of gap is irrelevent.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?



Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible. 


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.



This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


William,


On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not  
controlled by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello  
Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a  
governing or controlling function within the corresponding context.   
The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and  
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.


Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions  
between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well  
understood

these days.

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially  
sensitive to context issues.



I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said  
anything incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno





wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I  
can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.



No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,  
I find that suspicious, to be frank.


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.
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 
.


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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying
to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive
a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my objections,
only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So

What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ?
The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as
with the computer.  

Letters can't think. A thinker is needed.

To repeat, code by itself can't control anything.
The code is no different than a map without a reader.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


William,




On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by 
the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or 
controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational 
variation being higher-level controls on genome.

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes 
of molecules ? ATP generation for one is rather well understood
these days.

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to 
context issues.




I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything 
incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno







wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:





On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

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.
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.



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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:58, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

From the standpoint of Leibniz's metaphysics,
God is necessary because He runs the whole
show. In that case, the concept of gap is irrelevent.


No problem with this. With comp, arithmetical truth runs the whole  
show, in some sense.


Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form � i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.  
I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,  
I find that suspicious, to be frank.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


  

 Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form 
 – i.e. DNA).

 It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can 
 say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

 To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of 
 unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What 
 makes anything readable to anything?


 Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
 multiplication, ...


 My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many 
 marbles they are. 


 Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.



 I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an 
 equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, 
 there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken 
 place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple 
 lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to 
 close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a 
 mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine.

 To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.


 It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot 
 could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of 
 molecules can write english poems ...


By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person 
too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon 
based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. Why 
should this be the case in a comp universe?

I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical 
matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff 
that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of 
bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an 
exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it 
isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, 
lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the 
command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access 
to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than 
astrophysical or geological events.
 




  




 Sense is irreducible. 


 From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


 No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the 
 power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense 
 within itself as causally efficacious motive.


 This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
 invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
 anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, 
 but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be 
 frank.


 I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of 
 computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. 


 ?

  
How does the programming get in the program?




 Why does anything need to leave Platonia? 


 OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, 
 this beg the question: why do you think anything has even leave Platonia? 
 Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some angle/pov).


By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia. Why does Platonia need a 
Physics  view? Why should that possibility even present itself in a 
Platonic universe?
 

  


 How does encoding come to be a possibility 


 Because it exists provably once you assume addition and multiplication, 
 already assumed by all scientists.


If I begin with numbers and then add and multiply them together to get 
other numbers, where does the decoding come in? At what point do they 
suddenly turn into letters and colors and shapes and people? Why would they 
do that from an arithmetic perspective? We are not tempted to do this in a 
computer. We don't think 'maybe this program will run faster if we play it 
a happy song through tiny speakers in the microprocessor'. Even plants have 
been shown to benefit from being interacted with positively, but have 
computations shown any such thing? Has any computer program shown any 
non-programmatic environmental awareness at all?
 




 and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language of 
 arithmetic truth). 


 ?
 Why should it be useful?

 Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful? 


No.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote:

  Hi Bruno Marchal 
  
 The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that
 computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ?


 The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical evidence)



What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much 
more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain 
as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, 
not the presence or absence of logic circuits.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Alberto G. Corona

At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing everybody will
agree:

1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but in
practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed organization
of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different from computers. They
 are not autonomous and probably will not be for a long time. We will not
see it.

2) We feel ourselves as unique and qualitatively different from computers.
At least in the non-professional moments where we are not being reflecting
about it.

3) the reality that we perceive is created by the activity of the brain,
the mind. So we can not ascertain the true nature of the external reality,
neither talk properly about existence or non-existence in absolute terms,
that is, in the external reality.

4) Any reasoning start in a set of unproven beliefs, Wathever they are.
Depending on the beliefs our actions are different. Are you robots? I can't
know up to now. I believe it is not. But I believe that´s all. I believe,
you believe everyone believe. To realize that we believe in many unproven
things  is the first step in the self knowledge and in the respect of
others, because not only we don´t know but  probably we can´t ever know,
but we need beliefs to take decissions, that is, to live.







2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:




 Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form
 – i.e. DNA).

 It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can
 say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

 To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of
 unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What
 makes anything readable to anything?


 Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and
 multiplication, ...


 My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many
 marbles they are.


 Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.



 I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an
 equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles,
 there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken
 place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple
 lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to
 close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, just a
 mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine.

 To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.


 It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon
 robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set
 of molecules can write english poems ...


 By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a
 person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't
 carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to
 survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe?

 I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that
 physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a
 stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side
 of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an
 exterior side of body sense to face each other. From that perspective it
 isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids,
 lipids really), the carbon is just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the
 command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access
 to the palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than
 astrophysical or geological events.










 Sense is irreducible.


 From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


 No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the
 power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense
 within itself as causally efficacious motive.


 This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by
 invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain
 anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there,
 but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be
 frank.


 I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of
 computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is.


 ?


 How does the programming get in the program?




 Why does anything need to leave Platonia?


 OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 


JOHN: That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your 
skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What 
is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain 
have that a electron in a chip does not have?
ROGER: Life.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:46:03
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


? The self is subjective and I can think of?o way that objective machine
codes and silicon chips could produce that. 

That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull 
squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that 
way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have 
that a electron in a chip does not have?



 The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to implement 
 on silicon in binary code.

Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms have. In 
other words you believe in vitalism. I don't. 


? Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and ever 
shall be, beyond spacetime
?
Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or at a 
time. And that is clearly incorrect.? 


 So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God


If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained 
anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be infinitely 
bored. 



 If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or perhaps 
 cosmic mind. 

How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a perfectly 
respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained something when you 
really have not.

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi Roger Clough,

On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying
to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive
a bus through.


LOL




However, you keep ignoring my objections,
only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So



You object only to my working hypothesis. I just show that you are  
begging the question.






What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ?


What parts of the DNA molecules does not obey to the laws of physics  
(which are known to be Turing emulable)?
I guess you agree that we can survive with an artificial heart, liver,  
blood, skin, ... Why not with an artificial brain? What is the part of  
the brain which disobeys to the physical laws?




The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as
with the computer.


Humans cannot think either, with such argument, as an alien could  
consider them just as a bunch of molecules.





Letters can't think. A thinker is needed.


Letters can not add number, only a mathematician can, so a computer  
cannot add numbers.





To repeat, code by itself can't control anything.


A code can be implemented relatively to a universal code (computers)  
and can control partially itself, as computer science can illustrate.
You are just saying than computers are stupid, without saying why. You  
reduce computer to some of their third person facets, but we know that  
they are *much* more.




The code is no different than a map without a reader.


The local physical universe can make that code acting on itself, and  
changing itself, in a non controllable or predictable way.


It is not the code who does the thinking, but the activity entailed by  
the decoding of the code, and the decoding is done by some other  
universal system.



Codes are like maps. Useless and passive without a reader.


The local universe, or the environment is the reader, like the enzyme  
RNA polymerase can translate DNA in RNA, and RNA is naturally decoded  
into protein and enzyme by the transfert and ribosomic RNAs, with the  
help of proteins and enzyme already build from that very process.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence


William,


On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:
I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not  
controlled by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello  
Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a  
governing or controlling function within the corresponding  
context.  The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and  
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.
Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions  
between classes of molecules � ATP generation for one is rather  
well understood

these days.
Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially  
sensitive to context issues.



I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said  
anything incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno




wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form � i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.  
I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?
Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...




Sense is irreducible.
From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.
This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing  
mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.  
I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how  
many marbles they are.


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.



I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases  
an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated  
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the  
marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or  
read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan  
underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no  
possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of  
behaviors. No mind, just machine.


To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak  
English.


It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon  
robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon  
based set of molecules can write english poems ...


By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a  
person too.


It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs  
bunny like beings become persons.




As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon  
based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water to survive.


On our planet, but you extrapolate too much.



Why should this be the case in a comp universe?


Open and hard problem, but a priori, life can takes different forms.





I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that  
physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter  
not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the  
exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of  
selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other.  
From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the  
carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just  
the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN  
BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the  
palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than  
astrophysical or geological events.


This is not inconsistent with comp, but I don't find this plausible.  
In fact I believe that all civilisation in our physical universe end  
up into a giant topological computing machinery (a quark star, whose  
stability depends on sophisticated error tolerant sort of quantum  
computation) virtualising their past and future. Carbon might be just  
a step in life development. We might already be virtual and living in  
such a star. But more deeply, we are already all in arithmetic.


Bruno














Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something  
has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to  
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing  
mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.


I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the  
possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding  
of what i/o is.


?


How does the programming get in the program?





Why does anything need to leave Platonia?


OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but  
again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even  
leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some  
angle/pov).



By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia. Why does Platonia  
need a Physics  view? Why should that possibility even present  
itself in a Platonic universe?





How does encoding come to be a possibility


Because it exists provably once you assume addition and  
multiplication, already assumed by all scientists.


If I begin with numbers and then add and

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:








Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something  
has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to  
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing  
mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.


I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the  
possibility of computation without any explanation or understanding  
of what i/o is.


?


How does the programming get in the program?


Like the number 67589995004 get into arithmetic. By the consequence of  
addition and multiplication law. It is not obvious, but well explained  
in good textbook in logic.









Why does anything need to leave Platonia?


OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but  
again, this beg the question: why do you think anything has even  
leave Platonia? Physics is just Platonia seen from inside, from some  
angle/pov).



By Seen from inside you evoke a Non-Platonia.
Why does Platonia need a Physics  view? Why should that possibility  
even present itself in a Platonic universe?


It does not. It does as a collective hallucination by numbers. But you  
need computer science to get that point clearly.









How does encoding come to be a possibility


Because it exists provably once you assume addition and  
multiplication, already assumed by all scientists.


If I begin with numbers and then add and multiply them together to  
get other numbers, where does the decoding come in?


It is long to explain, but the statement that the machine number Nu,  
in some enumeration of the partial computable function, stops on the  
number X is equivalent with the following arithmetical and polynomial  
relations:


phi_Nu(X) converges (the machine Nu stops when applied to the input X)  
iff



BEGIN:

Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +  
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)

 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1

END

Xa^3 is an abbreviation of Xa * Xa * Xa, so you can see arithmetic  
naturally describes, complex computer science relations, in the  
language {s, 0, +, *}. See Matiyasevic book for more, and notably  
explicit arithmetical form for decoding and encoding.


Those relation are true or false independently of me, and you, and  
define a universal dovetaling in pure arithmetic.





At what point do they suddenly turn into letters and colors and  
shapes and people?


When Nu represent the brain of a human being, and X an input of  
similar to the imput you get in the eyes when looking something  
colored. (I use comp, of course: I answer in the theory I am working  
in).





Why would they do that from an arithmetic perspective?


Why do 3 divides 9?



We are not tempted to do this in a computer. We don't think 'maybe  
this program will run faster if we play it a happy song through tiny  
speakers in the microprocessor'. Even plants have been shown to  
benefit from being interacted with positively, but have computations  
shown any such thing? Has any computer program shown any non- 
programmatic environmental awareness at all?


This is not reasoning. You can't compare today machine, with humans  
who have a very long history. But such history is in arithmetic  
(trivially).










and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal language  
of arithmetic truth).


?
Why should it be useful?

Are babies useful? Are the ring of Saturn useful?

No. They aren't. That's my point. Those things would never arise  
from number crunching alone.


Indeed. But the hallucination of babies and Saturn rings do.



Numbers begat only more numbers. If you apply numbers to forms, then  
you get interesting forms. If you apply interesting colors, sounds,  
etc. But numbers will never discover these things. We discover them.  
Real things discover numbers, not the other way around.


We are relative numbers. You just asserts that we are not. We agree to  
disagree on that possibility.









Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy model of realism which  
is then passed off as genuine

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing  
everybody will agree:


1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but  
in practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed  
organization of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different  
from computers. They  are not autonomous and probably will not be  
for a long time. We will not see it.


2) We feel ourselves as unique and qualitatively different from  
computers. At least in the non-professional moments where we are not  
being reflecting about it.


3) the reality that we perceive is created by the activity of the  
brain, the mind. So we can not ascertain the true nature of the  
external reality, neither talk properly about existence or non- 
existence in absolute terms, that is, in the external reality.


Thats the old dream argument. It is also the UDA step six, in modern  
digital rendering. A key point indeed.





4) Any reasoning start in a set of unproven beliefs, Wathever they  
are. Depending on the beliefs our actions are different. Are you  
robots? I can't know up to now. I believe it is not. But I believe  
that´s all. I believe, you believe everyone believe. To realize that  
we believe in many unproven things  is the first step in the self  
knowledge and in the respect of others, because not only we don´t  
know but  probably we can´t ever know, but we need beliefs to take  
decissions, that is, to live.





That is why I insist that people gives their axioms, or theories. Then  
we can do science instead of asserting public truth, which is, in my  
opinion, bad philosophy, as indeed we cannot know any public truth. Is  
there a moon? That is an hypothesis. Nobody has given a proof of the  
absolute existence of the moon.


Bruno








2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com


On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.  
I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how  
many marbles they are.


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.



I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases  
an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated  
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the  
marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or  
read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan  
underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no  
possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of  
behaviors. No mind, just machine.


To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak  
English.


It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon  
robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon  
based set of molecules can write english poems ...


By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a  
person too. As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that  
isn't carbon based. As far as we know, all living organisms need  
water to survive. Why should this be the case in a comp universe?


I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that  
physical matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter  
not as a stuff that independently exists, but as a projection of the  
exterior side of bodies making sense of each other - or the sense of  
selves making an exterior side of body sense to face each other.  
From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is meaningful, the  
carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is just  
the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN  
BIOAVAILABILITY DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the  
palette of histories associated with living organisms rather than  
astrophysical or geological events.











Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something  
has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to  
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 15:22, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

Is not this quote of yours plain enough as evidence that you said  
something incoherent:


“It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell.”


I never wrote that. I think Roger wrote it.

Bruno





wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:28 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence


William,


On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not  
controlled by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello  
Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a  
governing or controlling function within the corresponding context.   
The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and  
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.


Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions  
between classes of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well  
understood

these days.

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially  
sensitive to context issues.



I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said  
anything incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno





wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:





On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I  
can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...






Sense is irreducible.

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,  
I find that suspicious, to be frank.


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.
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 
.


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 
.


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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 15:24, William R. Buckley wrote:


Roger and Bruno:

No part of the DNA molecule controls life.  DNA is simply a  
description, a

representation of information, a piece of paper upon which letters are
written.

It is the letter order that controls life.  Nothing more.


No problem with this. You might read my paper Amoeba, Planaria and  
dreaming machines(*) which explains the math of self-reproduction,  
and self-regeneration and thus embrogenesis. (and also of dreaming,  
like Bateson, I think biology and psychology are different  
instantiation of the same self-referential phenomenon.
I think all this is coherent with your views as exposed here and in  
your paper.


You asked me to explain Kleene's theorem. I will do that asap, but it  
is hard to explain technics on a mailing list. I will try to say two  
words on it someday, though.


Bruno

(*) Marchal B., 1992, Amoeba, Planaria, and Dreaming Machines, in  
Bourgine  Varela (Eds), Artificial Life, towards a practice of  
autonomous systems, ECAL 91, MIT press.




wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Roger Clough

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:44 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence


Hi Bruno Marchal

Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying
to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive
a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my objections,
only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So

What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ?
The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as
with the computer.

Letters can't think. A thinker is needed.

To repeat, code by itself can't control anything.
The code is no different than a map without a reader.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence


William,


On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:
I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not  
controlled by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello  
Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a  
governing or controlling function within the corresponding context.   
The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and  
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.
Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions  
between classes of molecules � ATP generation for one is rather  
well understood

these days.
Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially  
sensitive to context issues.



I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said  
anything incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno




wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:





On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form � i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I  
can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?
Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.
From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.



No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.
This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical  
laws by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does  
not explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I  
might find sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism,  
I find that suspicious, to be frank.

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.
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

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Are you saying that comp creates and controls all by means of some kind of code
in some Pythagorean realm, where all is numbers ? That everything is computable 
?



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?



Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...

My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles 
they are. 


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.






I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal 
weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would 
be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing 
has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a 
chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There 
is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of 
behaviors. No mind, just machine.

To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.



It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot 
could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of 
molecules can write english poems ...

By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person 
too. 


It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs bunny 
like beings become persons. 






As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far 
as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. 


On our planet, but you extrapolate too much.




Why should this be the case in a comp universe?



Open and hard problem, but a priori, life can takes different forms.







I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical 
matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that 
independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making 
sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body 
sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is 
meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is 
just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY 
DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated 
with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events.



This is not inconsistent with comp, but I don't find this plausible. In fact I 
believe that all civilisation in our physical universe end up into a giant 
topological computing machinery (a quark star, whose stability depends on 
sophisticated error tolerant sort of quantum computation) virtualising their 
past and future. Carbon might be just a step in life development. We might 
already be virtual and living in such a star. But more deeply, we are already 
all in arithmetic.


Bruno





















Sense is irreducible. 


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.



This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of 
computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. 


?



How does the programming get in the program?








Why does anything need to leave Platonia? 


OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 17:12, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Are you saying that comp creates and controls all by means of some  
kind of code
in some Pythagorean realm, where all is numbers ? That everything is  
computable ?


Comp is a theory. It does nothing. You grasp it, or you don't, and  
this independently of being true or false, like any theory. The theory  
assume that the brain is emulable by a computer, and is natural as it  
is hard to find something not emulable by a computer without using  
special mathematical tools.


So ontologically, eventually the natural numbers can be an acceptable  
universal realm, and in that sense, yes, all is numbers + the laws of  
addition and multiplication.


But this does not entails that everything is computable, on the  
contrary, it is shown that the computable is rather exceptional, and  
even consciousness and matter appears to be non computable, because  
they arise from a phenomenon (first person indeterminacy) related to  
the fact that no machine can be know which machine she is, and still  
less which computations supports her, and those are infinitely  
distributed in arithmetic.



In Leibniz, brute matter indeed exists just as in a text on
solid state physics. And you can stub your toe on a rock.


Like in comp. yet they do not exist ontologically. They exist  
epistemologically. Physics beomes literally a branch of numbers's  
biology or psychology or theology.




But this is referred to by L as the phenomenal world.


So it is like in comp.



To L, the rock also exists in the world of ideas as a monad.
Monads as ideas are more basic than matter, which
according to L, can be infinitely divided.
So to L, the ideal is real.


Like in comp.





I personally would use the uncertainty principle to
rank ideas as real as opposed to particles.


That might be quick. Anyway, with comp QM is NOT part of the  
hypothesis. It should be part of the conclusion, and that is what  
makes comp testable.






Leibniz refers to our everyday world as containing
well-established phenomena.



I agree. I have no problem with Leibniz, I only find him hard to read.  
But I have studied the Platonists and the neoplatonists, (and Chinese  
and Indians thinkers) and comp asks for some backtracking to them. I  
tend to consider Plotinus as the most modern guy on the planet, and I  
appreciate the neoplatonists as they do not oppose the mystical  
inquiry to rationalism. They remain cold in hot water!



Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence



On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R.  
Buckley wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in  
wetware form � i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living  
cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals,  
clocks, and calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition  
and multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how  
many marbles they are.


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of  
marbles.




I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases  
an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated  
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the  
marbles has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or  
read, it's only a simple lever that opens a chute until the pan  
underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There is no  
possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of  
behaviors. No mind, just machine.


To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak  
English.


It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a  
silicon robot could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a  
carbon based set of molecules can write english poems ...


By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become  
a person too.


It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that  
bugs bunny like beings become persons.




As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon  
based. As far as we know, all living organisms need water

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  what vital ingredient does a neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have
 that a electron in a chip does not have?

  ROGER: Life.

Yes life, I was afraid you might say that. It may interest you to know that
the Latin word for Life is vita, it's where the word vitalism comes
from. And by the way, even creepy creationists don't think neurotransmitter
chemicals are alive.

  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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



  God is necessary because He runs the whole show.


And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the
whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How
do my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have
become adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains
that if you can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains
absolutely positively nothing.

  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.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

No, presumably each software program is different.
So the machine is still controlled in various ways  by the programmer.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:42:26
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. 

If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be 
absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the 
machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem. And 
you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you expect a 
computer to.
?
 To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices?eyond that.

We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a 
philosophical absurdity. It does not. 



They should? be able to beat me at?oker even though they have no poker program.?

Why?? You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and 
neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about how 
the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good because at 
the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won all your money at 
poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it again, if computers 
don't have intelligence then they have something better. 


 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
 could function.


And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things 
functioning?

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

Vitalism is simply life.  Otherwise an organism or whatever is dead.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 15:54:47
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012? Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:



 do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's 
 really nothing but an ad hominem attack.


It's not ad hominem if its true. We can't be talking about anything except 
vitalism and as one of the most enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this 
list I'm surprised you consider the term an insult. 


 We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 


Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that 
computer chips lack. 
?
 organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic 
 qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense.


That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when it was 
all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today.? 


 This is not vitalism.


How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism??? Clearly you 
believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips lack; perhaps 
you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference and prefer 
some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.? ? 



 Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by the 
 programmer

Absolutely!? 



 but that these outcomes are trivial

If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a 
multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world. ? 



Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it can't come up 
with the invention of Elvis Presley, 

Not true. You can make a Turing Machine out of things other than a long paper 
tape, you can make one out of the game of life by using the gliders to send 
information; and if you started with the correct initial conditions you could 
have a game of life Turing Machine instruct matter how to move so that the 
matter was indistinguishable from the flesh and blood king of rock and roll.? 



 We only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside 
 intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those 
 introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that

The opposite of? automatic way is random way.

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Roger Clough

Hi William R. Buckley 

OK, DNA is wetware If you like.

But I am conscious, as are all living entities, and
that's the 1p problem, as I understand it, even for a bacterium,
and that cannot be solved because it is indeterminate.

To be alive, one must be able to think on one's own, 
to be able to make choices on one's own, not choices
made by soft- or wetware. 

To have intelligence, one must have a self, 
and software cannot even emulate that.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: William R. Buckley 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:22:31
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger:

It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, 
that DNA is a physical representation of program.

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. 
DNA).

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist

Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 
Richard
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 
BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: 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. 
ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: 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. 
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

  do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. 
 It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.


 It's not ad hominem if its true. 


No, it doesn't matter what names you call someone, or whether you think 
they are true, the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and 
that it derails the discussion.
 

 We can't be talking about anything except vitalism and as one of the most 
 enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this list I'm surprised you consider 
 the term an insult. 


It is because that you say that I have something to do with defending 
vitalism that I know you don't understand my ideas. There is nothing 
special about organic matter that makes life possible. There is nothing 
about matter that makes anything possible. It is the sense that is made 
through matter that makes things possible, and that sense has qualitative 
potentials which are represented in particular ways. The way that 
biological qualities are represented in space and matter is as living 
cells, tissues, and living bodies. Being cell like doesn't make something 
alive, being alive leaves a cell like footprint.
 


  We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 


 Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that 
 computer chips lack. 


Um, no. Because you can't control hamsters. I don't care if hamsters were 
made of cobalt and zinc, you can't make a computer out of them because they 
have their own agenda that you can't effectively control. I don't want to 
sink to your level, but if you continue with your false accusations and ad 
hominem horseshit, the I'm not going to bother with you.
 

  

  organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic 
 qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense.


 That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when 
 it was all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today.  


Your opinions about what sucks might be interesting to some people. You 
should find them. To say that there is a qualitative breakthrough between 
biology and zoology is vitalist how? I would say that the qualitative bump 
from single cell to animal is even more significant than the bump from 
molecule to cell, or atom to molecule. I am talking about a punctuated 
equilibrium of scale and history, not a categorization of substances.


  This is not vitalism.


 How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism?? 


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by 
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from 
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism 
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are 
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that 
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like 
and you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out 
how to make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they 
haven't so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't 
be the same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.

 

 Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer 
 chips lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a 
bag of sand lacks.
 

 perhaps you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference 
 and prefer some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that 
there are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. 
No more than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is 
only sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative 
depth.


  Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated 
 by the programmer


 Absolutely!  

  but that these outcomes are trivial


 If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a 
 multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world.   


That's like saying 'If soft drinks were just carbonated sugar water with 
drugs in it, they wouldn't have become a  multibillion dollar industry 
It's a fallacy and a misrepresentation of my comment. I didn't ever say 
that computers can only 'do trivial stuff', only that their capacity to 
exceed the constraints of their programming is trivial. Computers have 
capacities that far exceed our own, but only in some respects and not 
others. They are good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't stand 
doing. Why are they good at it? Because they are unbelievably stupid. They 
will compute Pi to the last digit until they corrode just because someone 
accidentally

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

   It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that 
 machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to 
 construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game.


 No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no 
 difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference 
 between thinking and imitation thinking.   


Incorrect about what? Are you saying that Turing asserted that machines 
could think, or that if we could not tell the difference between a machine 
and a living person that means there is no difference?
 


   I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that 
 says THANK YOU. 


 And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 
 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much 
 thought into the message as the trash can did.


Absolutely. The repetition makes it...automatic, and therefore 
disingenuous, mechanical. Unconscious. 


   John K Clark
  

  --

 Hi Craig,

 John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.


Nah, his point is a conflation of appearances and reality. Like this 
sentence. It is not a thought. It is not speaking. I am using these empty 
forms to communicate my thought, my speaking. He is saying that if my 
computer posts these words without me typing them in then it must mean 
something just because nobody can tell the difference. It's the same as 
saying that a glass of water must be the same as a glass of distilled 
vinegar because they look the same.

Craig

 

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZA4PAkYbyhYJ.
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.

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread William R. Buckley

Consider that we begin with a living, biological cell.

 

Next, we begin to remove systems and elements from the cell, 

and replace them with non-biological alternatives.  For example, 

we replace the genome and nucleic acid production system with 

a nanotechnology systems that yields the same nucleic acids as 

products, in the same amounts over time as occurs in the natural 

cell.

 

At what point does removal of some element yield irrevocable 

loss of state - it no longer lives but instead ceases all behavior, 

and returns to the non-living state?

 

Whatever is that element that yields such irrevocable loss of 

state, that is a vital element.  It is not a mystical or deistical 

definition.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: johnkcl...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's
really nothing but an ad hominem attack.


It's not ad hominem if its true. 


No, it doesn't matter what names you call someone, or whether you think they
are true, the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and that
it derails the discussion.
 

We can't be talking about anything except vitalism and as one of the most
enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this list I'm surprised you consider
the term an insult. 


It is because that you say that I have something to do with defending
vitalism that I know you don't understand my ideas. There is nothing special
about organic matter that makes life possible. There is nothing about matter
that makes anything possible. It is the sense that is made through matter
that makes things possible, and that sense has qualitative potentials which
are represented in particular ways. The way that biological qualities are
represented in space and matter is as living cells, tissues, and living
bodies. Being cell like doesn't make something alive, being alive leaves a
cell like footprint.
 

 

 We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 


Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that
computer chips lack. 


Um, no. Because you can't control hamsters. I don't care if hamsters were
made of cobalt and zinc, you can't make a computer out of them because they
have their own agenda that you can't effectively control. I don't want to
sink to your level, but if you continue with your false accusations and ad
hominem horseshit, the I'm not going to bother with you.
 

 

 organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic
qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense.


That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when it
was all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today.  


Your opinions about what sucks might be interesting to some people. You
should find them. To say that there is a qualitative breakthrough between
biology and zoology is vitalist how? I would say that the qualitative bump
from single cell to animal is even more significant than the bump from
molecule to cell, or atom to molecule. I am talking about a punctuated
equilibrium of scale and history, not a categorization of substances.

 

 This is not vitalism.


How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism?? 


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like and
you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out how to
make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they haven't
so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't be the
same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.

 

Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips
lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a bag
of sand lacks.
 

perhaps you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference and
prefer some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that there
are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. No more
than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is only
sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative
depth.

 

 Programs can and do

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


What is DNA if not software?


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist
 
Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 
Richard


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: 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. 
ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: 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. 
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread William R. Buckley


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like and
you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out how to
make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they haven't
so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't be the
same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.



They certainly won't be the same but, how will they differ?  Do you claim
that such a non-biological cell will not be able to perform each and every
action that is performed by a biological cell?  If you do make such claim,
on what basis, what justification do you make that claim?


 

Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips
lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a bag
of sand lacks.
 

perhaps you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference and
prefer some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that there
are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. No more
than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is only
sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative
depth.

 

 Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by
the programmer


Absolutely!  

 

 but that these outcomes are trivial


If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a
multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world.   


That's like saying 'If soft drinks were just carbonated sugar water with
drugs in it, they wouldn't have become a  multibillion dollar industry
It's a fallacy and a misrepresentation of my comment. I didn't ever say that
computers can only 'do trivial stuff', only that their capacity to exceed
the constraints of their programming is trivial. Computers have capacities
that far exceed our own, but only in some respects and not others. They are
good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't stand doing. Why are they
good at it? Because they are unbelievably stupid. They will compute Pi to
the last digit until they corrode just because someone accidentally pressed
the enter key. Dumb. Not sentient. No awareness. They don't care, they don't
feel, they don't understand...anything at all. Those are things that we are
(supposedly) good at.

 

This is a problematic statement.  Consider Myhill's work on constructor
machines, where their abilities to construct is unbounded.  Each machine is
able to construct 

a machine having just slightly greater construction capacity, ad infinitum.
See the paper The Abstract Theory of Self-Reproduction as presented in Burks
collection Essays on Cellular Automata, U of Illinois Press, 1970.

 

Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it can't come
up with the invention of Elvis Presley, 


Not true. You can make a Turing Machine out of things other than a long
paper tape, you can make one out of the game of life by using the gliders to
send information; and if you started with the correct initial conditions you
could have a game of life Turing Machine instruct matter how to move so that
the matter was indistinguishable from the flesh and blood king of rock and
roll.  


You are missing my point entirely. It is no trick to make Elvis from a
machine which has the correct initial conditions to make Elvis. The point is
that no amount of GoL transitions strung together will ever become anything
other than what it is - recursively enumerated digits. There is nothing to
generate any qualities other than that in the machine or the program - any
patterns which we project on this data; 'gliders', 'cells', whatever, are
nothing but simulacra...the projections of our own psyche.

 

Thus my interest in constructing machines, not just Turing machines.
Biological organisms are at root built on the backs of constructing
machines.


 

 

 We only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside
intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those
introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that


The opposite of  automatic way is random way.


That is your completely unsupported prejudice. The legal system of every
human group that has ever persisted on Earth would disagree. The opposite of
automatic, according to them, is voluntary or intentional. Welcome to planet
Earth, where there are things we like to call living organisms who are able
to do things 'on purpose' rather than randomly or

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread William R. Buckley

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:  wrote:

 It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that
machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to
construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game.

No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no
difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference
between thinking and imitation thinking.   

Incorrect about what? Are you saying that Turing asserted that machines
could think, or that if we could not tell the difference between a machine
and a living person that means there is no difference?

 I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says
THANK YOU. 

And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th
customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought
into the message as the trash can did.

Absolutely. The repetition makes it...automatic, and therefore disingenuous,
mechanical. Unconscious. 

  John K Clark

--

Hi Craig,

John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.

Nah, his point is a conflation of appearances and reality. Like this
sentence. It is not a thought. It is not speaking. I am using these empty
forms to communicate my thought, my speaking. He is saying that if my
computer posts these words without me typing them in then it must mean
something just because nobody can tell the difference. It's the same as
saying that a glass of water must be the same as a glass of distilled
vinegar because they look the same.

Yes, the conclusion is errant.  However, whether they are or are not the
same requires further inquiry.  Neither side has yet enough information by
which to decide with certainty.

wrb

Craig

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZA4PAkYbyhYJ.
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.

RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread William R. Buckley

This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:

  So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

 

wrb

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

 

Hi Richard Ruquist 

 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.

So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

 

Roger Clough,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

What is DNA if not software?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist

　

Pre-ordained is a religious position 　

And we aren't controlled by software. 

　

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

8/29/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02

Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 

in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 

Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 

ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following

instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that

synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 


More below, but I will stop here for now.

--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 

Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of

its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: 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. 

ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.


BRUNO: 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. 

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.

But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,

contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 


So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley  
wrote:



Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware  
form – i.e. DNA).


It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I  
can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and  
calendars.


To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of  
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a  
ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and  
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has  
the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute  
that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws  
by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not  
explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find  
sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that  
suspicious, to be frank.


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.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


  

 Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – 
 i.e. DNA).

 It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can 
 say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

 To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of 
 unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What 
 makes anything readable to anything?


 Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
 multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many 
marbles they are. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then 
releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated 
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles 
has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a 
simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy 
enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, 
just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine.

To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.
 




 Sense is irreducible. 


 From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


 No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the 
 power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense 
 within itself as causally efficacious motive.


 This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
 invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
 anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, 
 but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be 
 frank.


I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of 
computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. Why 
does anything need to leave Platonia? How does encoding come to be a 
possibility and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal 
language of arithmetic truth). Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy 
model of realism which is then passed off as genuine by lack of 
counterfactual proof - but proof defined only by the narrow confines of the 
toy model itself. It is the blind man proving that nobody can see by 
demanding that sight be put into the terms of blindness.

Craig
 


 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/baW65jd5eg4J.
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.

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread William R. Buckley

Bruno:

 

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled
by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there 

are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing
or controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome 

is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.

 

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between
classes of molecules - ATP generation for one is rather well understood 

these days.

 

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to
context issues.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

 

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:







On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 

 

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form -
i.e. DNA).

It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes
anything readable to anything?

 

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and
multiplication, ...

 






Sense is irreducible. 

 

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.

 





No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the
power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense
within itself as causally efficacious motive.

 

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there,
but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be
frank.

 

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.
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

   The self is subjective and I can think of no way that objective machine
 codes and silicon chips could produce that.


That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your
skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity.
What is that way, what vital ingredient does a  neurotransmitter chemical
in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have?

 The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to
 implement on silicon in binary code.


Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms
have. In other words you believe in vitalism. I don't.

  Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and
 ever shall be, beyond spacetime


Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or
at a time. And that is clearly incorrect.

 So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God


If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained
anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be
infinitely bored.

 If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or
 perhaps cosmic mind.


How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a
perfectly respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained
something when you really have not.

  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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-30 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:


  the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and that it
 derails the discussion.


Yes, but I'm surprised you think that's name calling. I'd be insulted if
somebody called me a vitalist but I don't see why you should be.


  if you continue with your false accusations and ad hominem horseshit,
 the I'm not going to bother with you.


What a tragedy that would be.

 I would say that the qualitative bump from single cell to animal is even
 more significant than the bump from molecule to cell, or atom to molecule.


And I would say that the only difference between a bunch of hydrogen carbon
and oxygen atoms, amino acids, proteins, cells, and Craig Weinberg, is the
position of the atoms.

 Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
 biological organisms and others that are not.


Like how computers can never be conscious regardless of what sort of
brilliant behavior they display because they are lacking in something
vital.  In other words vitalism.


  vitalism would be that living cells are composed of life-giving
 molecules which are fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules.


Like how cells are fundamentally different from computer chips because
cells have something vital the chips lack. In other words vitalism.

 I'm not saying that at all.


Bullshit.

 Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a
 bag of sand lacks.


To turn a bag of sand into a ham sandwich you'd need 2 things, information
on where the protons and neutrons should go and energy to get the job done.
And come to think of it you might not even need much energy, the silicon
nucleus in sand has more energy than the carbon and hydrogen nucleus in the
ham sandwich.

 They [computers] are good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't
 stand doing.


Things we can't stand doing, like playing the games of checkers, chess,
poker and Jeopardy!


  The point is that no amount of GoL transitions strung together will ever
 become anything other than what it is - recursively enumerated digits.
 There is nothing to generate any qualities other than that in the machine
 or the program - any patterns which we project on this data; 'gliders',
 'cells', whatever, are nothing but simulacra


So the gliders in the Game Of Life are just simulacra but the
neurotransmitter chemicals in the brain (which serve the same purpose) are
not simulacra because the chemicals have something vital that the gliders
lack. In other words vitalism.

 The opposite of  automatic way is random way.


  That is your completely unsupported prejudice.


A prejudice that all men of learning have had since the days of Aristotle,
that  X is Y or X is not Y.  The only reason you would challenge this
fundamental axiom of logic is because that is the only way you can get your
looney ideas to work.  If you abandon logic you can get any idea to work.

 The legal system of [...]


I'm talking about logic, what on earth does the law have to do with logic?
Do you expect to learn how the universe operates from lawyers?

  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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 

ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:  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. 

ROGER:  OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it  by logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: 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. 

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.  IMHO anything that a computer 
does still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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 G?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, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

Indeed, only I can know that I actually feel pain.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:39:09
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
 is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in
 I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms.

A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the
special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly
feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but
that's just an act with no real feeling behind it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own.
 BRUNO: 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
 xx, then DD gives DD. DD 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.

 ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

 If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new,
 it is merely following
 instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to
 some algorithm.

 If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish.
 Which is to say that
 synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought.

 More below, but I will stop here for now.

 --
 Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the
 hardware.
 Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct
 (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No.
 And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in
 his software program and constrained by the hardware.

 What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly
 free will.
 Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means
 freely, of
 its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not
 limited by it.


 BRUNO:  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.

 ROGER:  OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it  by
 logic, although it no doubt has its own logic.

 BRUNO: 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.

 This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was
 miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
 But on reflection, I no longer believe that.  IMHO anything
 that a computer does still must follow its own internal logic,
 contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language,
 even if those calculations are of infinite complexity.
 Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that
 must be true.

 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.


 BRUNO: You hope.


 Bruno








 Roger Clough, 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
 Receiver: everything-list
 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 G?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, 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
 Receiver: everything-list
 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

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Stathis Papaioannou \

Good point. The argument fails.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:35:36
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 You are talking about a robot, not a human.
 At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy.
 Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an
 atheist or theist.
 For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind.

You assume the thing that you set out to prove: that a computer cannot
be intelligent or conscious.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Richard Ruquist

Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
Richard


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 
?
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
?
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
?
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:? 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. 
?
ROGER:? OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: 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. 
?
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true.?

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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 G?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, rclo...@verizon.net 
8

RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread William R. Buckley

Roger:

 

It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, 

that DNA is a physical representation of program.

 

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. 
DNA).

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

Pre-ordained is a religious position  

And we aren't controlled by software. 

 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

8/29/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02

Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 

in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 

Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: 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 xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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. 

�

ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

�

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following

instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

�

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that

synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 


More below, but I will stop here for now.

--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 

Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of

its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:� 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. 

�

ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.


BRUNO: 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. 

�

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.

But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,

contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true.�


So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:+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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do.


If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be
absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the
machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem.
And you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you
expect a computer to.


  To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that.


We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a
philosophical absurdity. It does not.

They should  be able to beat me at poker even though they have no poker
 program.


Why?  You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and
neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about
how the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good
because at the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won
all your money at poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it
again, if computers don't have intelligence then they have something
better.

 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.


And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things
functioning?

  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.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


  

 Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – 
 i.e. DNA).

It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can 
say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of 
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What 
makes anything readable to anything?

Sense is irreducible. No software can control anything, even itself, unless 
something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to 
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rs-VsPOMIRsJ.
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's
 really nothing but an ad hominem attack.


It's not ad hominem if its true. We can't be talking about anything except
vitalism and as one of the most enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this
list I'm surprised you consider the term an insult.

 We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters


Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that
computer chips lack.


  organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic
 qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense.


That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when it
was all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today.

 This is not vitalism.


How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism??  Clearly
you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips lack;
perhaps you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference
and prefer some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.

 Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by
 the programmer


Absolutely!

 but that these outcomes are trivial


If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a
multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world.

Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it can't come
 up with the invention of Elvis Presley,


Not true. You can make a Turing Machine out of things other than a long
paper tape, you can make one out of the game of life by using the gliders
to send information; and if you started with the correct initial conditions
you could have a game of life Turing Machine instruct matter how to move so
that the matter was indistinguishable from the flesh and blood king of rock
and roll.

 We only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside
 intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those
 introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that


The opposite of  automatic way is random way.

  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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that
 machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to
 construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game.


No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no
difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference
between thinking and imitation thinking.

 I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says
 THANK YOU.


And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th
customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought
into the message as the trash can did.

  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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  If a computer could compute new knowledge, how would you know whether it
 is new or not, or even what it means ? This is called the translation
 problem.


If a person could create new knowledge, how would you know whether it is
new or not, or even what it means? This is called the bullshit problem.

  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.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

What is DNA if not software?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Richard Ruquist

 Pre-ordained is a religious position
 And we aren't controlled by software.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
 intelligence

  Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
 in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
 Richard

 On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own.
 BRUNO: 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
 xx, then DD gives DD. DD 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.
 �
 ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
 �
 If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new,
 it is merely following
 instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to
 some algorithm.
 �
 If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish.
 Which is to say that
 synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought.

 More below, but I will stop here for now.

 --
 Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the
 hardware.
 Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct
 (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No.
 And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author
 in his software program and constrained by the hardware.

 What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly
 free will.
 Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means
 freely, of
 its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not
 limited by it.


 BRUNO:� 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.
 �
 ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic,
 although it no doubt has its own logic.

 BRUNO: 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.
 �
 This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought
 was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
 But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer
 does still must follow its own internal logic,
 contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language,
 even if those calculations are of infinite complexity.
 Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that
 must be true.�

 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.


 BRUNO: You hope.


 Bruno








 Roger Clough, 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
 Receiver: everything-list
 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 G?el's stuff shows that
 machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied
 computer science is used to help

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-29 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to
imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could
come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing
The Imitation Game.


No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is 
no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no 
difference between thinking and imitation thinking.


 I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place
that says THANK YOU.


And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 
47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as 
much thought into the message as the trash can did.


  John K Clark


--

Hi Craig,

John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware,
neither of which are their own. And so, machines cannot do anything
not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by 
the hardware.  
So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
make decisions intended by the software programmer.


Roger Clough, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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 G?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, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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 11101111011000110101011011... (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.
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

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own. And so, machines cannot do anything
 not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained
 by the hardware.
 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.

Could you explain how humans are *not* constrained by their software
and hardware?

I think you have a magical view about how biological organisms function.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. 
To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that.
They should  be able to beat me at poker even though they have
no poker program. 


Roger Clough, 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: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 13:48:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



On Mon, Aug 27, 2012? Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

?
 I don't think that computers can have intelligence


But computers can solve equations better than you, play a game of chess better 
than you, be a better research librarian than you and win more money on 
Jeopardy than you; so it they don't have intelligence they apparently have 
something better.

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

You are talking about a robot, not a human.
At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy.
Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an 
atheist or theist.
For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind. 

Roger Clough, 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: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 22:00:42
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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.

But people must also do only what their software and hardware tells
them to do. The hardware is the body and the software is the
configuration the hardware is placed in as a result of their exposure
to their environment.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
 is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in
 I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms.

A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the
special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly
feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but
that's just an act with no real feeling behind it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


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   
xx, then DD gives DD. DD 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, 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
Receiver: everything-list
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 G鰀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, 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
Receiver: everything-list
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  
11101111011000110101011011... (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

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread William R. Buckley

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  xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD 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 G鰀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 11101111011000110101011011... (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

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Craig Weinberg

I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that 
before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to 
the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated 
by the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend 
the constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a 
new kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis 
Presley, regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be 
generated by any combination of black and white or one and zero.

2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we would 
imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters or 
milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We 
only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside 
intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those 
introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that, 
but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto 
experience on its own inertial frame of perception. It might, but we don't 
know that. I would give the benefit of the doubt to all matter as having 
common physical sense, but that organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and 
anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of 
sense.

This is not vitalism. There is no magic juice of life-ness, only a rough 
segmentation or diffracted caste relation of participation richness and 
significance intensity. A living baby is not the same thing as a spare tire 
to us, but it isn't significantly different to a tsunami. Neither the 
significance nor the insignificance is an 'illusion', they are just 
measures of the relations of the investment of experience across eons and 
species and how that investment relates to the participants on every level.

Roger and Searle are correct however in pointing out that the machine has 
no stake in the outcome of the program, nor can it. I suggest that there is 
an experience there, but likely very primitive - a holding and releasing 
which is what we know as electric current within the semiconductors. There 
is no actual current, only excited-empowered molecules. There is no 
program, only a mirroring of our meticulous transcription of human motive 
and its inevitable tautological products. 

Since we are multi-layered, we can become confused when we assume that who 
we are must be a monolithic representation of all that we are. If we expect 
that the contents of all processes of the psyche should be available to our 
verbal-cognitive specialists then we will be disappointed and turn to 
Libet. We will mistake the automatism which supports lower levels of what 
we are for the quasi-independence of the spectrum of identity which we 
embody.

Craig


On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:13:23 AM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 Roger:

  

 I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.

  

 wrb

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Roger Clough
 *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2012 4:07 AM
 *To:* everything-list
 *Subject:* Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

  

 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. 

  

  

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:

 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 javascript: 

 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 

 *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 11101111011000110101011011... (say

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread William R. Buckley

No, it is not ad hominem.  It is a serious issue.

 

The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism.

 

Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur.

 

Your second argument hinges upon semiotics.  You have no way to 

compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any 

other creature; your umwelt is not my umwelt.

 

And, vitalism is not necessarily a call to Deity.  There are a great 

many non-deist connotations to vitality.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that
before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to
the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by
the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend the
constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a new
kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley,
regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be generated by any
combination of black and white or one and zero.

2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we would
imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters or
milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We
only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside
intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those
introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that,
but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto
experience on its own inertial frame of perception. It might, but we don't
know that. I would give the benefit of the doubt to all matter as having
common physical sense, but that organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and
anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of
sense.

This is not vitalism. There is no magic juice of life-ness, only a rough
segmentation or diffracted caste relation of participation richness and
significance intensity. A living baby is not the same thing as a spare tire
to us, but it isn't significantly different to a tsunami. Neither the
significance nor the insignificance is an 'illusion', they are just measures
of the relations of the investment of experience across eons and species and
how that investment relates to the participants on every level.

Roger and Searle are correct however in pointing out that the machine has no
stake in the outcome of the program, nor can it. I suggest that there is an
experience there, but likely very primitive - a holding and releasing which
is what we know as electric current within the semiconductors. There is no
actual current, only excited-empowered molecules. There is no program, only
a mirroring of our meticulous transcription of human motive and its
inevitable tautological products. 

Since we are multi-layered, we can become confused when we assume that who
we are must be a monolithic representation of all that we are. If we expect
that the contents of all processes of the psyche should be available to our
verbal-cognitive specialists then we will be disappointed and turn to Libet.
We will mistake the automatism which supports lower levels of what we are
for the quasi-independence of the spectrum of identity which we embody.

Craig


On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:13:23 AM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

Roger:

 

I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Roger
Clough
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

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. 

 

 

Roger Clough,  javascript: 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 javascript:  

Receiver: everything-list javascript:  

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

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 No, it is not ad hominem.  It is a serious issue.

Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could 
be a serious issue too, but it doesn't mean it isn't ad hominem.
 

  

 The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism.

  

 Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur.

I can't defend against an unsupported accusation. All I can do is say, 'no 
it doesn't'.

 

 Your second argument hinges upon semiotics.  You have no way to 

 compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any 

 other creature; your umwelt is not my umwelt.


Your presumption of my capacities to compare experiences depends on exactly 
the same capacity that mine does. If you are right that your umwelt is not 
my umwelt, then how do you know that my umwelt doesn't contain yours?

Instead, why not assume a psychic unity of mankind. I don't have to assume 
that I can't compare my experience to another creature at all. I can say 
that if I step on a cat's tail and it reacts, that there is in fact every 
reason to assume a comparable dimension of pain. It's sophistry to pretend 
that we can't compare our own experience to others...we do it all the time. 
Our sanity depends on it. It need not be questioned as the questioning 
itself implies a hyper-reality of sense comparison between umwelts which 
would be inaccessible if your proposition was true. You cut off the limb 
you are sitting on to try to hit me with it.
 

  

 And, vitalism is not necessarily a call to Deity.  There are a great 

many non-deist connotations to vitality.


Who said anything about a deity?

Craig
 

  

 wrb

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

  

 I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that 
 before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to 
 the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

 I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

 1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated 
 by the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend 
 the constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a 
 new kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis 
 Presley, regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be 
 generated by any combination of black and white or one and zero.

 2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we 
 would imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 
 or milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We 
 only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside 
 intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those 
 introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that, 
 but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto 
 experience on its own inertial frame of perception. It might, but we don't 
 know that. I would give the benefit of the doubt to all matter as having 
 common physical sense, but that organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and 
 anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of 
 sense.

 This is not vitalism. There is no magic juice of life-ness, only a rough 
 segmentation or diffracted caste relation of participation richness and 
 significance intensity. A living baby is not the same thing as a spare tire 
 to us, but it isn't significantly different to a tsunami. Neither the 
 significance nor the insignificance is an 'illusion', they are just 
 measures of the relations of the investment of experience across eons and 
 species and how that investment relates to the participants on every level.

 Roger and Searle are correct however in pointing out that the machine has 
 no stake in the outcome of the program, nor can it. I suggest that there is 
 an experience there, but likely very primitive - a holding and releasing 
 which is what we know as electric current within the semiconductors. There 
 is no actual current, only excited-empowered molecules. There is no 
 program, only a mirroring of our meticulous transcription of human motive 
 and its inevitable tautological products. 

 Since we are multi-layered, we can become confused when we assume that who 
 we are must be a monolithic representation of all that we are. If we expect 
 that the contents of all processes of the psyche should be available to our 
 verbal-cognitive specialists then we will be disappointed and turn to 
 Libet. We will mistake the automatism which supports lower levels of what 
 we are for the quasi-independence of the spectrum of identity

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread William R. Buckley

My statement is not intended for either of these purposes:

 

1.  (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the
emotions and not reason or logic.
2.  Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy
or position they maintain.

 

It is instead a serious statement.

 

I needn't supply argument to support a statement (you call accusation) when
you so admirably supply same.

 

The best you can do in comparing my umwelt with your umwelt is to adopt a
common standard, and spend 

eternity coming to agreement on every comparison.  You cannot directly
compare experiences; all comparisons 

are second hand, post experience.

 

You called upon the notion of a magic juice of life-ness in responding to
my statement, and therefore invoke 

(at minimum) some mystical conception, if not Deity.

 

wrb  

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

No, it is not ad hominem.  It is a serious issue.

Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could
be a serious issue too, but it doesn't mean it isn't ad hominem.
 

 

The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism.

 

Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur.

I can't defend against an unsupported accusation. All I can do is say, 'no
it doesn't'.

 

Your second argument hinges upon semiotics.  You have no way to 

compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any 

other creature; your umwelt is not my umwelt.


Your presumption of my capacities to compare experiences depends on exactly
the same capacity that mine does. If you are right that your umwelt is not
my umwelt, then how do you know that my umwelt doesn't contain yours?

Instead, why not assume a psychic unity of mankind. I don't have to assume
that I can't compare my experience to another creature at all. I can say
that if I step on a cat's tail and it reacts, that there is in fact every
reason to assume a comparable dimension of pain. It's sophistry to pretend
that we can't compare our own experience to others...we do it all the time.
Our sanity depends on it. It need not be questioned as the questioning
itself implies a hyper-reality of sense comparison between umwelts which
would be inaccessible if your proposition was true. You cut off the limb you
are sitting on to try to hit me with it.
 

 

And, vitalism is not necessarily a call to Deity.  There are a great 

many non-deist connotations to vitality.


Who said anything about a deity?

Craig
 

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that
before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to
the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by
the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend the
constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a new
kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley,
regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be generated by any
combination of black and white or one and zero.

2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we would
imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters or
milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We
only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside
intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those
introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that,
but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto
experience on its own inertial frame of perception. It might, but we don't
know that. I would give the benefit of the doubt to all matter as having
common physical sense, but that organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and
anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of
sense.

This is not vitalism. There is no magic juice of life-ness, only a rough
segmentation or diffracted caste relation of participation richness and
significance intensity. A living baby is not the same thing as a spare tire
to us, but it isn't significantly different to a tsunami. Neither the
significance nor the insignificance is an 'illusion', they are just measures
of the relations of the investment of experience across eons

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread Craig Weinberg

It's intentional hyperbole, not a non-sequitur. I am making the comparison 
between a program designed to produce simple patterns of pixels achieving a 
trivial level of novelty within that constraint of design and the event of 
any such program achieving an authentic transgression of its own 
programmatic constraints.

There is no need to prove this claim as it is not a claim, it is a factual 
description and a clarification of the implications of that description. If 
you are claiming that GoL can produce something other than meaningless 
iterations of quantitative pixels, then the burden of proof is on you. 
Where is the Elvis?


On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:13:22 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 Proof of non-sequitur.  You assert that GoL cannot invent Elvis Presley.  
 You have no proof of this claim.  You simply claim it.  Further, see 

  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

  

 Your relevant statement is:  Conway's game of life can produce a new kind 
 of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley, 
 regardless of how sophisticated the game is. 

  

 QED

  

  

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

  

 On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

 No, it is not ad hominem.  It is a serious issue.

 Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could 
 be a serious issue too, but it doesn't mean it isn't ad hominem.
  

  

 The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism.

  

 Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur.

 I can't defend against an unsupported accusation. All I can do is say, 'no 
 it doesn't'.

  

 Your second argument hinges upon semiotics.  You have no way to 

 compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any 

 other creature; your umwelt is not my umwelt.


 Your presumption of my capacities to compare experiences depends on 
 exactly the same capacity that mine does. If you are right that your umwelt 
 is not my umwelt, then how do you know that my umwelt doesn't contain yours?

 Instead, why not assume a psychic unity of mankind. I don't have to assume 
 that I can't compare my experience to another creature at all. I can say 
 that if I step on a cat's tail and it reacts, that there is in fact every 
 reason to assume a comparable dimension of pain. It's sophistry to pretend 
 that we can't compare our own experience to others...we do it all the time. 
 Our sanity depends on it. It need not be questioned as the questioning 
 itself implies a hyper-reality of sense comparison between umwelts which 
 would be inaccessible if your proposition was true. You cut off the limb 
 you are sitting on to try to hit me with it.
  

  

 And, vitalism is not necessarily a call to Deity.  There are a great 

 many non-deist connotations to vitality.


 Who said anything about a deity?

 Craig
  

  

 wrb

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
 Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

  

 I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that 
 before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to 
 the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

 I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

 1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated 
 by the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend 
 the constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a 
 new kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis 
 Presley, regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be 
 generated by any combination of black and white or one and zero.

 2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we 
 would imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 
 or milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We 
 only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside 
 intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those 
 introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that, 
 but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto 
 experience on its own inertial frame of perception. It might, but we don't 
 know that. I would give the benefit of the doubt to all matter as having 
 common physical sense, but that organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and 
 anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of 
 sense.

 This is not vitalism

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-08-28 Thread William R. Buckley

The burden of proof is not on me.  I am replying to your initial claim, that
Elvis will not appear in context of GoL.  

 

Intellectual honesty implies the proof is on you.

 

wrb

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

It's intentional hyperbole, not a non-sequitur. I am making the comparison
between a program designed to produce simple patterns of pixels achieving a
trivial level of novelty within that constraint of design and the event of
any such program achieving an authentic transgression of its own
programmatic constraints.

There is no need to prove this claim as it is not a claim, it is a factual
description and a clarification of the implications of that description. If
you are claiming that GoL can produce something other than meaningless
iterations of quantitative pixels, then the burden of proof is on you. Where
is the Elvis?


On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:13:22 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

Proof of non-sequitur.  You assert that GoL cannot invent Elvis Presley.
You have no proof of this claim.  You simply claim it.  Further, see 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

 

Your relevant statement is:  Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of
glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley, regardless
of how sophisticated the game is. 

 

QED

 

 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:

No, it is not ad hominem.  It is a serious issue.

Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could
be a serious issue too, but it doesn't mean it isn't ad hominem.
 

 

The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism.

 

Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur.

I can't defend against an unsupported accusation. All I can do is say, 'no
it doesn't'.

 

Your second argument hinges upon semiotics.  You have no way to 

compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any 

other creature; your umwelt is not my umwelt.


Your presumption of my capacities to compare experiences depends on exactly
the same capacity that mine does. If you are right that your umwelt is not
my umwelt, then how do you know that my umwelt doesn't contain yours?

Instead, why not assume a psychic unity of mankind. I don't have to assume
that I can't compare my experience to another creature at all. I can say
that if I step on a cat's tail and it reacts, that there is in fact every
reason to assume a comparable dimension of pain. It's sophistry to pretend
that we can't compare our own experience to others...we do it all the time.
Our sanity depends on it. It need not be questioned as the questioning
itself implies a hyper-reality of sense comparison between umwelts which
would be inaccessible if your proposition was true. You cut off the limb you
are sitting on to try to hit me with it.
 

 

And, vitalism is not necessarily a call to Deity.  There are a great 

many non-deist connotations to vitality.


Who said anything about a deity?

Craig
 

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that
before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to
the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.

I would only modify Roger's view in two ways:

1. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by
the programmer, but that these outcomes are trivial and do not transcend the
constraints of the program itself. Conway's game of life can produce a new
kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley,
regardless of how sophisticated the game is. Blue cannot be generated by any
combination of black and white or one and zero.

2. Hardware does actually feel something, but not necessarily what we would
imagine. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters or
milkshakes because reliable computation requires specific properties. We
only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside
intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those
introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that,
but that doesn't mean that inorganic matter has no experience or proto
experience on its own inertial

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 110 matches

Mail list logo