Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other
>>> ethical principles or commandments from God:
>> With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp
>> (and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify that any *action* made
>> the name of God is bad, even saving the planet from some attack by
>> horrible monster ...
> That seems to be a reductio against comp.
I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology
to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is
"famous" for its many paradoxical thoughts.
It is certainly not a reductio against comp, given that we are not
arriving at a genuine contradiction. It just happens that "goodness" is
as unnameable as truth.
Now, concerning this paradox, it seems to me intuitively
comprehensible. If someone saves me from some horrible pain, then that
is (arguably) good; but if he does that in the *name* of "good", I can
understand that this naming depreciates its action. Even if personally
I am still benefiting from that situation, the naming could make me
uneasy, and who knows what will be done under that or any name.
>> Witrh comp (and the "ideal" case of self-referentially correct
>> it is just impossible for a machine to do something good and at the
>> same time telling she is doing something good ... (similar paradoxes
>> are illustrated in taoist and buddhist tales).
> So one cannot be reflective about one's actions and conclude they are
> good? That sounds like nonsense.
We can be reflective about one's actions and conclude *for ourselve*
that they are good, but lobianity prevents correct machine to
communicate it to others *as such*, if only to prevent any normative
use of a notion like "goodness". It prevents also idolatry toward names
or descriptions of "good", "true", "correct". With comp a judge can put
a machine in jail, despite its total inability to ever judge the
machine deserve jail.
Some buddhist told this in some provocative way: if you really love
buddha, kill it. (Not to take literally OC).
Recall that once we interview a correct machine, be it Peano-Arithmetic
PA, or the far richer Zermelo-Fraenkel, or even the "angel"
Analysis+OmegaRule (which has infinite cognitive abilities), the first
interesting thing such machines or entity say is that they will told us
some bullshit or that they may told us some bullshit. So am I. Please,
don't infer from that that I believe to be such a *correct* machine
(that does not follow logically). I know "I" am lobian, assuming comp
or (much) weaker. I don't know (and will never known) if I am
consistent and I still less know if I am correct.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at