On 02 Sep 2005, at 03:05, Lee Corbin wrote:
Not at all. I insist on the consequences of comp. Like Godfrey you have admitted not having read neither the UDA proof nor its constructive translation. Now you talk like if I was calling comp something else. That physics is secondary with comp is a result, a theorem in cognitive science/theology/biology (call that like you want). That materialism is incompatible with computationalism is a result, etc. So please, you can doubt the result, and then you could perhaps point on some error in UDA, but it is unfair to pretend that by comp I am not just talking on the "well known" comp in cognitive science. Of course, many many many papers still confused comp and materialism, but unless UDA is wrong this is no more possible to do.
I have always use that term. comp is just shorter and easy to pronounce.
Lee, please take into account that those who wrote those words are probably not (yet?) aware of my result. My fault, in part, because I am slow at submitting papers. Actually I have never do that. All papers which I have published has been ordered by some people who heard about my stuff. Why? That's another story. Of course the reversal result introduces ambiguity in expressions like "mental activity". That is why I sum up "comp" by YD + CT + AR. ("Yes doctor" + Church Thesis + Arithmetical realism).
Here I agree comp must be distinguished with functionalism, and then comp is much weaker, because it says we are turing machine emulable *at some level*, which could be far more low than symbolic type of processing (it could even be the dovetailing on the solution of DeWhit-Wheeler cosmological wave equation). But this makes sense through the result I got, with the grandmother YD and without.
Don't confuse UDist (Schmidhuber Hal Finney sort of theory) and the UD. Original paper of UD "paradox": Note the reversal is implicit (diplomatic stuff!). The question is: Do you agree that YD, computationalism, and Uploading acceptance are mainly equivalent? Then I have shown that this entails the reversal physics/computer-science.
I have no theory other than traditional computationalism (mind is turing emulable) My theory is the standard "mechanist" thesis updated by Post, Godel, Church, Kleene, discoveries of the universal machine and its lobian theorem prover extension.
This is perhaps the biggest difference between Schmidhuber and me. I give a detailed proof of the main proposition without making any speculation other than putting clearly the hypotheses on the table. For many comp is obviously true and for many comp is obviously false. The least thing I illustrate is that comp is not obvious at all. Indeed, the mind-body problem is partially reduced to explaining how the physical appearances emerges from *all* computations through "internal first person points of view (which makes sense by CT).
This is just wrong and is a typical confusion between p -> q and q -> p (which can be often seen as an abuse of OCCAM). STRONG AI = machine can be conscious COMP = me and humans are turing emulable. (+ humans are conscious). STRONG AI does not logically imply COMP (machine could think does not logically entail that only machine could think! Of course with OCCAM, machine can think makes more plausible that we are perhaps machine, but given that I provide a proof we must distinguish deduction and inductive inference).
Comp *was* an essential tenet of physicalism. That's explain why the reversal is "shocking", for many, probably. UDA shows that comp makes physicalism, materialism, naturalism wrong (or explicatively empty, like invisible horses pulling cars).
Even before the reversal, YD is already quite close to the comp theology: you can save your soul on a disk, and survive a form of body transmigration, and the UDA shows that this put fundamental constraints on the nature of reality.
But then please again in consideration the reversal. I could accept that old, pre-reversal, comp can be thoughjt contrary to buddhism, but after the reversal I doubt such arguments remain valid. Please, Lee, in older posts you acknowledge the newness of what I pretend having done, it is up to you to verify the UDA if you think an error has been commited. Ask any question.I probably underestimate the hardness and radical novelty of what I consider to be the result of a not so hard (but not so simple too) hypotheses-deductive reasoning. The translation and "constructivisation" of the UDA argument, AUDA or the machine interview, is admittedly much more involved and demanding in mathematical logic. Bruno |
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not* Bruno Marchal
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *n... "Hal Finney"
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it i... Bruno Marchal
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *n... "Hal Finney"
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it i... Bruno Marchal
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it i... Bruno Marchal
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *n... "Hal Finney"
- Re: What Computationalism is and what it i... Norman Samish
- Re: What Computationalism is and what ... Saibal Mitra
- Re: What Computationalism is and w... Saibal Mitra
- Re: What Computationalism is ... Norman Samish