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 
"omniscience"?

Bruno


<<quote:

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

Bruno:
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.

endquote>>





http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to