Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit :

> Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
> The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"<
> ">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
> that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability.
> So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from
> this that we are "God!".Bruno<"
> I apologize for misunderstanding what you said.

No problem. I hope I was not too much direct, but of course, 
misunderstandings are the very reason why we are discussing.

>  I tried to find the meaning of the (seemingly mistyped?)  
> "unanmeability"
> in your present post  - the closest was :'untenability'. Is this what 
> you meant?
> *

Logicians use the term "unameability"  in the sense of undescribable. 
The most typical example is the notion of truth for any sufficiently 
complex machine. Such machine, when consistent (not proving 0 ≠ 0)  
cannot define a notion of truth T(x) and prove that for each sentence x 
they can prove T(x) iff x. That is, no truth predicate, bearing on a 
machine, can be defined by that machine.

> Now let me return to our 'human mind".
> Reasonably: we are part of a world -

The notion of "part" is misleading, both in comp and in QM.

> assumably a small portion only - and our
> mind (whatever you identify as that) is 'part of us' = included into 
> the 'model' we
> may call 'humans'.

Is not the model included in the mind, instead?

> We have certain exparience-stuff and logical thinking ways,
> we use that even in trying to 'understand' ideas beyond it - beyond 
> our reach of
> observation. We do that, but can never be sure of doing it right.


> In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human 
> evolving as done
> by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned 
> "energy"
> with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math 
> could
> formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our 
> human mind.
> (It facilitated direct mental contact, manipulation of time, 
> overriding of materially
> induced space barriers, conscious machines and of course no 
> lights-peed max.)
> [It was rejected  from publishers both in the US and Europe on 
> identical grounds:
> too much science and insufficient sex and violence]
> Speaking about such is different from understanding, more so from 
> 'creating'.
> We would need a bootstrap process to explain our origin (existence) 
> from within our existence.

Yes. But comp science is full of possible bootstrap processes.

> Maybe this is my mental limitation - I have to live with it.

Why? If you are really aware of a mental limitation, then you can 
overcome it.

> And - of course - I am also guilty of 'human' thinking as you  charged.

Well I "charged" you for criticising some idea by only mentionning that 
there are produced by "human thinking".
If a human (resp. lobian) really find a personal limitation, then 
he/she/it can go beyond, with some work. That is the nice aspect of 
human, and of lobian machine.

> Loeb created the idea of his machine. It is equipped with superhuman 
> (-natural?)

Loeb proved in 1955 that Peano Arithmetic PA has the following weird 
property. If PA proves that provable(p) implies p, for some proposition 
p, then PA proves p (Lob theorem). I call a machine, or a any chatty 
entity "Lobian", in case it obeys Loeb theorem. You can see Lob theorem 
as a statement that some placebo effect could work for PA (and thus by 
definition on all Lobian Machine). If you convince a Lobian entity that 
if she ever believes that [if she believes in Santa Klaus existence 
implies Santa Klaus existence], then she will believe in Santa Klaus.
And, of course, if the machine is correct, this will entail the 
existence of Santa Klaus.

> capabilities, all identified by a human mind, just as my 3-pole energy 
> was. The idea of a "pole" is very much from within our (humanly 
> adjusted?) worldview. If it
> is 2, or 3, or 1457: it is still a (humanly divised) "pole".


> I am a believer of 'creativity' so I do not find 'arguing' about 
> 'ideas' superfluous.
> I am not 'prejudiced' against numbers: I asked so many time to get 
> understandable information and did not. I am agnostic, do not 'cut 
> out' other possibilities unless I see acceptable arguments to do so. 
> (Acceptable to me).
> And: you are so smart that you do not have to resort to some 'racist' 
> hint which
> seems to me as an ad hominem link.

OK sorry. Sometimes you give me the feeling that you know that machine 
cannot be the bearer of thought.

> Here I am again: decided so many times to keep off from arguments 
> where the
> word "god" is involved and am bugged down into it, both with you and 
> Danny.

The choice of words should not matter, at least in principle. We should 
bother only on the validity of reasoning. But 'course, it is easier to 
say than to practice. In mnay situation, I would say the "God" of the 
machine X, is the truth *on* the machine X (including what the machine 
can never known).
Thanks to Godel, Lob, etc. we know that machine are theological in the 
sense that when they introspect a bit, they can know that truth is much 
vaster than what they can know. That is why a synonym of "lobian" is 
"modest". Lobian machine = modest machine.

> I have to control my 'mouse' better.

Me too :-)



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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to