Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 04 Nov 2015, at 23:00, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/4/2015 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, in machine's theology, the proof of the immortality of the soul by Socrates is valid, but is not cons

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 11/4/2015 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, in machine's theology, the proof of the immortality of the soul by Socrates is valid, but is not constructive, and its practical aspect is dependent o

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 03 Nov 2015, at 22:27, John Mikes wrote: Thanks, Quentin, I take it as a reply to my questioning PA and RA. (the "A" in PA meaning axioms, in RA arithmetic?). None of them satisfies my own take on 'intelligent'. I start from the llinguistic origin (Latin: inter-lego), I READ between - th

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 03 Nov 2015, at 21:17, John Mikes wrote: I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for. Can you explain in brief? PA is Peano Arithmetic. RA is Robinson Arithmetic(*). RA can be proved to be "sigma_1 complete" or "Turing universal": it imitates all digital process, and thu

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 03 Nov 2015, at 22:52, Brent Meeker wrote: I don't think anyone proposes that PA or RA are intelligent. Bruno says PA is conscious the way we are; but I think that's shorthand for "has relationships corresponding to belief". It's sort of like saying the dictionary contains the plays o

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 03 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/3/2015 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, in machine's theology, the proof of the immortality of the soul by Socrates is valid, but is not constructive, and its practical aspect is dependent of you degree of appreciation of not knowin

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 4:30:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:11:54PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: > Russell, please: what is your take on "INTELLIGENT"? Its a word describing cognitive ability. Not particularly well defined IMHO. -- Prof Russell Standish

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

I don't think anyone proposes that PA or RA are intelligent. Bruno says PA is conscious the way we are; but I think that's shorthand for "has relationships corresponding to belief". It's sort of like saying the dictionary contains the plays of Shakespeare. Intelligent is not the same as consc

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

Thanks, Quentin, I take it as a reply to my questioning PA and RA. (the "A" in PA meaning axioms, in RA arithmetic?). None of them satisfies my own take on 'intelligent'. I start from the llinguistic origin (Latin: inter-lego), I *READ between* - the lines and words, that is). To catch a 'meaning

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

PA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms RA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_arithmetic 2015-11-03 21:17 GMT+01:00 John Mikes : > I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for. > Can you explain in brief? > Thanks > John M > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Mar

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

I read it all, did not find what PA and RA are standing for. Can you explain in brief? Thanks John M On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 P

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

Russell, please: what is your take on "INTELLIGENT"? John Mikes On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:23:47PM -0800, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 11/3/2015 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, in machine's theology, the proof of the immortality of the soul by Socrates is valid, but is not constructive, and its practical aspect is dependent of you degree of appreciation of not knowing who you (first person are). Then, a priori computa

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 02 Nov 2015, at 18:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 02 Nov 2015, at 08:23, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > thesis, then we have to consider the possi

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:23:47PM -0800, Pierz wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > > thesis

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 02 Nov 2015, at 08:09, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but her

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 01 Nov 2015, at 18:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 01 Nov 2015, at 04:55, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily im

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title desi

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may be a > >

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought t

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 11/1/2015 12:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz > wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may be a > conscious process - indeed the onus should be on us to say why it *wouldn't* > be > co

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz wrote: > OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has > intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being > about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on > computation. This necesssarily

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time b

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: > > OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has > intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being > about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) st

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily implies

Intelligent design - maybe?

OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily implies (by Church thesis) that the hardware