Le 14-juin-07, à 18:13, John Mikes a écrit :

> I wonder about Bruno's (omniscient) Lob-machine, how it handles a 
> novelty.

Did you receive my last mail? I quote below the relevant part. To be 
sure, there is a technical sense, in logic, of "omniscience" in which 
the lobian machines are "omniscient". But I doubt that you are using 
"omniscience" in that technical sense. Let me ask you what you mean by 



> John:
> I know that you ask your oimniscient Loebian machine,

Aaah... come on. It is hard to imagine something less omniscient and 
more modest than the simple lobian machine I interview, like PA whose 
knowledge is quite a tiny subset of yours.
You are still talking like a *pregodelian* mechanist. Machine can no 
more be conceived as omniscient, just the complete contrary.
And adding knowledge makes this worse. You can see consciousness 
evolution as a trip from G to G*, but that trip makes the gap between G 
and G* bigger. The more a universal machine knows, the more she will be 
*relatively* ignorant.
With comp, knowledge is like a light in the dark, which makes you aware 
of the bigness of the explorable reality, and beyond.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to