Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/17/2012 9:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Forgive me if I bring up Leibniz again, but to my mind he gives the most thorough descriptions as to how the world works. And so logical that you can figure out many things on your own. Dear Roger, I too have found Leibniz' Mona

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 11:45:19 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 9/16/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Leibniz was not a solipsist, since he took it

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/16/2012 12:35 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Stephan, I would like to quibble about your statement: "For God, all things are given but once and there is no need to "compute the relations" . in terms of the OMEGA Point (OP). Hi Richard, A good friend of mine (who I was just talking to

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi Stephan, I would like to quibble about your statement: "For God, all things are given but once and there is no need to "compute the relations" . in terms of the OMEGA Point (OP). Both in MWI and SWI, God (or whatever mechanism) is able to compute the OP. But I suspect that the computation is n

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/16/2012 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The other minds problem ("How do I know that there are other minds ?") is indeed an impossible to crack nut if you are a solipsist. So solipsim is perhaps the only philiosophy impossible to disprove. Or prove, I think. Leibniz was not

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/16/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz was not a solipsist, since he took it for granted that the world out there was actually there. If a tree fell in a forest and nobody heard it, it still would have fallen. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz wo

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

ough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 13:29:01 Subject: Re: Simp

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 13:29:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 9/15

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/15/2012 9:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King And then there is Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles, identity there meaning that you only need one of them, throw the rest away. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

thing could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 13:29:27 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 9/14/2012 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 14 Sep 2012, at 16:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/14/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 20:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been comp

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/14/2012 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: > Godel numberings are not unique. True, there are a infinite number of ways you could do Godel numbering. Hi John, Yes, but my point here is that t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > Godel numberings are not unique. True, there are a infinite number of ways you could do Godel numbering. > Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an > infinity And you can use any one of those Godel numb

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/14/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 20:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several thi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 13 Sep 2012, at 20:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel number

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 30 Aug 2012, at 04:40, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 1:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structur

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslut

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infinity th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 13 Sep 2012, at 12:40, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could "prove" utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean "!=" or "^6" instead of "=>", the whole proof is nonsense. Sure, and if I interpret

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

elusion in many cases, and the rest is very limited at best. Especially when we think we really understand fundamental issues we are the most deluded. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 12 Sep 2012, at 15:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: > >> >> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume >> I want to >> attack you (and thus ar

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infinity that cannot be reduced. 2) the physical implemen

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

n see any real attempt to show how he is wrong. All responses amount to little more than denial or authoritative argument or obfuscaction. The main reason that people don't see the flaw is because they abstract so much that they abstract away the error (but also the meaning of the proof) and because t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:05, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, w

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

really > representing" or "that they really understand"? > > How would we prove this? Why should I take for granted that humans do > this, > other than legitimacy through naturalized social norms, which really don't > have that great a track record? > Can we

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: > > > >> > >> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume > >> I want to > >> attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

s of assigning Gödel numbers in arithmetic itself. This would need another non-unique embedding of syntax, hence leading to the same problem (just worse). For more detail and further points about Gödel you may take a look at this website: http://jamesrmeyer.com/godel_flaw.html benjayk -- View th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not operta

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

udy proofs regarding this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34417635.html Sent from the Everything List

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

free to consider them as zombie, if that is your theory. I don't consider *anything* zombie, even the most inert matter. Machines just don't have clearly determined points of view, IMO. But I think most persons don't have one either, which is maybe too radical to even seriously pro

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

the world, in the same way that I am not thinking highly of dogmatic religion. It is harmful IMO and not conducive to our well-being. I am only slightly displeased that you act a bit like your reasoning is beyond doubt by dogmatically rejecting every argument against it (simply claiming it does no

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 08 Sep 2012, at 15:47, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: even though the paper actually doesn't even begin to adress the question. Which question? The paper mainly just formulate a question, shows how comp makes it possible to translate the question in math, and show that the genera

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

t you actually showed a relation between *actual* points of view and arithmetics). It doesn't matter whether I like COMP or not. I don't find it a very fruitful assumption, but that's not the issue. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-p

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

not be digital at all, except in a very weak sense by using anything that's - practically speaking - digital (we can already do that), so your reasoning doesn't work. You lost me here. Any actual substitution can't be purely digital, and so the reasoning doesn't work be

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

his case we can't >>>> derive >>>> anything from this, because a "correct implementation" may actually >>>> require >>>> a biological brain or even something more. >>> >>> The consequences will go through

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:16, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Put it differently, it is what the variable used in the theory represent. ExP(x) means that there is some number verifying P. But this makes no sense if you only consider the natural numbers. The just contain "123456789 + * an

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 05 Sep 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

e a clue why you believe this is senseless or >>> inconsistent. >> For one thing, with COMP we postulate that we can substitute a brain >> with a >> digital emulation ("yes doctor"), > > At some level. > > > >> yet the brain > >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

vel of substitution exist. Bruno Actually I don't think you have any problems to understand that on an intellectual level. More probably you just don't want to lose your "proof", because it seems to be very important you (you defended it in thousands of posts). Bu

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningfu

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

bstitution does really take place - yes doctor is just a metaphor for "I am digital"), but then it is tautological and your reasoning is merely an explanation of what it means if we are digital. Of course we could engage in stretching the meaning of words and argue that COMP sa

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p point of view where this isn't true. This "po

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 03 Sep 2012, at 16:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why co

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

in this case we can't *always* say YES doctor, because then there would be no original left to interpret the emulation). Really it is quite a simple point. If you substitute the whole universe with an emulation (which is possible according to COMP) than there is nothing left to interpret th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 30 Aug 2012, at 06:21, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Wouldn't that alternative be one in which there are only a finite number of possible persons?...e.g. materialism. Bren On 8/30/2012 7:49 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: That's true, it is not a contradiction. However, from a Bayesian perspective one must favor the alternative that gives one's a exist

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

That's true, it is not a contradiction. However, from a Bayesian perspective one must favor the alternative that gives one's a existence a non-zero measure. Terren On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/29/2012 7:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> hmmm, my interpretation is that

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/29/2012 7:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can im

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been perform

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that "you" are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating "you". Brent

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi Terry, I think so too. I wonder if this could be captured by assuming the opposite of Cantor continuum hypothesis? Or by thinking of computations as integers embedded in hyperreal numbers. On 8/29/2012 12:04 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/29/2012 10:52 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation by the UD" might mean, we have just a re

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren > Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So > at any stage short the infinite com

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of lette

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seem

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/29/2012 2:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King > On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi Brent, I didn't wrote what is quoted, it's Stephen ;) Quentin 2012/8/29 meekerdb > On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation > by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinati

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD execute

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King > On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in > arithmetic. > > > This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies > are iden

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscernible are one and the same mind. There

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/27/2012 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:32, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/27/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal w

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

What you are all missing is this: A particular kind of pattern (in sand or salt) can be generated by generating a specific sound (cymatics). The same pattern would be generated whether or not any human ear was present to hear the 'sound' as an audible experience. The same pattern could be manua

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > A pendulum is only a metal rod. A clock is nothing but gears "A brain is nothing but a glob of grey goo" says the robot. > There is no clock sauce that makes this assembly a clock. Yes there is, the clock sauce is the information on what the posi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:32, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/27/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wr

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/27/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don'

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 26 Aug 2012, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote: 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 intellig

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:12:35 AM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: >> a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons. > None of them are the reasons of a clock. Certainly it’s the reasons of a clock. The reas

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does

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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 25 Aug 2012, at 07:30, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/24/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 25 Aug 2012, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: On 8/25/2012 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be used as an argument here.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 poi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: >> a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons. >> > > > None of them are the reasons of a clock. > Certainly it’s the reasons of a clock. The reason a cuckoo clock runs at the speed it does is the length of its pendulum, a different clock

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/25/2012 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Decoherence theory provides a mechanism, although the basis problem is open. It is of a piece with the problem of deriving the classical from the quantum. I have never understood the basis problem. It is quite similar to comp. You have to fix a bas

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/25/2012 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be used as an argument here. "Normally"?? The holographic principle was extra

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random. We might do things because the laws of arithmetic. With comp Nature is not in the ontology. You are assuming physica

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Point, Set, Match: Craig Weinberg! On 8/25/2012 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > I did it for many reasons And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many re

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:50:32 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > I did it for many reasons And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons. None of them are the reasons of a clock. If you must manufacture reasons, th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > We might do things because the laws of arithmetic. > If so then we in particular and everything in general is as deterministic as a cuckoo clock because when you add 2 numbers together you always get the same answer. I might add that everyt

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated. That's QM+collapse, but

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Telepathy, for example. >> >> > Are you aware of any conclusive studies of psi? That depends on what you interpret as conclusive. For hard-headed skepticists no study will count as conclusive. There are plenty of studies that show results that are *far* beyond chance, though. Also t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world of inference inductive machine, a machine capable of being wrong is already non computably more powerful than an error prone machine. Th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be used as an argument here. "Normally"?? The holographic principle was extracted from general relativity and the Be

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

it as a dogma? > > The laws are constantly being revised, which is what science is about. > If there were no laws there would be no point to science. Right, but this doesn't mean that the laws have to be accurate or even can be accurate. They just need to be accurate enough to be usef

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

aglement with their own emulation, I think I will write a post about this later), that is still not necessarily the case. It is only the case if you know how to make sense of the emulation. And I don't see that we can assume that this takes less than being einstein. benjayk -- View this message in co

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:36, John Clark wrote: I don't know either, nobody knows, even the computer doesn't know if it will stop until it finds itself stopping; If a computer stops, it will never know that. If it executes a stopping program, then it can. To stop has no first person meaning.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 23 Aug 2012, at 19:08, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk > wrote: > 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer' If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement PERIOD. Any limitation a compute

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM, benjayk wrote: >> The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science. > That is plainly wrong. It is like saying what humans do is determined > through a (quite accurate) description of what humans do. > > It is an confusion of level. The univer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:04 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> >> Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or > >> >> nothing), just like the sentenc

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/24/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

t; be > >> a > >> > requirement for the operation of the brain. > >> > > >> > > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Limit_on_information_density > >> > > >> That argument does not work if the human bra

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > I did it for many reasons > And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons. > some of them my own. > In other words you have not divulged to others some of the reasons you acted as you did, and no doubt some of the reasons you don't k

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated. That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined, It is well d

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world of inference inductive machine, a machine capable of being wrong is already non computably more powerful than an error prone machine. There's something wrong with that sentence. An erro

  1   2   >