Le 20-oct.-07, à 18:06, David Nyman a écrit :

>
> On Oct 19, 2:26 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> David, do you mind if I send next week your solution (which were
>> correct) of the exercises I gave online once to the list?   I am sure
>> it could help some other. All that  is needed to get Church's thesis
>> eventually right. Recall that Church thesis is one half of COMP.
>>
>
> Just saw this.  Sure, no problem.




Thanks. So I will answer the question below asap. I have a bit more 
time next week, so I think I will able to do it soon,


For the other I recall that a good understanding of Cantor 
diagonalization (the point of those exercises) is needed to, not only 
grasp Church thesis (which is 1/2 of comp), but to grasp the impact of 
Church thesis in the science in general.

Thanks again for your patience,

Bruno




>>> On Oct 16, 11:37 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>  If it is ''a'-rtificial' I question the 'natural one' (following
>>>>> Bruno's fear of the (natural?) 'super stupidity'.) Yet I don't 
>>>>> think
>>>>> Marc wants to let himself denature into an artifact.
>>
>>>> Not necessarily, but look at Saibal's recent answer!
>>>> This raises a question for Mark. What if the "future "SAI"", "SI"
>>>> should we say, are computationalist? Marc, is it ok if those SI
>>>> reincarnate you digitally? Could they decide without your consent
>>>> (without being super-stupid?).
>>
>>> Your points are well taken Bruno.  We should be highly suspicious of
>>> any 'authority' that thinks to act without our consent.
>>
>>> As for cryonics, Saibal , I think it's a good option.  If necessary,
>>> I'm quite prepared to put myself in the freezer - I have no intention
>>> of getting any older than a biological age of 65 - if I live that 
>>> long
>>> I might be the first guy in the world to volunteer for a 'live
>>> freeze' (I would probably have to move to a country where there are
>>> laws allowing for assisted suicide though!)
>>
>>>> Again, not necessarily. Buddhism, unlike Christianity, has always 
>>>> been
>>>> very aware that "religious truth", once "institutionalized" get 
>>>> wrong
>>>> ...
>>>> To kill the buddha, or sompetimes just the master, is a way to 
>>>> remind
>>>> the monk that they have to find the truth in themsleves and never to
>>>> take any master talk for granted.
>>
>>>>> In our (definition-wise) lower mentality it is not likely that we 
>>>>> can
>>>>> 'kill' the smarter. So the condition involves the un-possibility,
>>>>> even
>>>>> if we are capable to recognise them
>>>>>  - what we are not likely to be.
>>
>>>> Agreed. It was just a parabola for driving attention against any use
>>>> of
>>>> authoritative argument in the field of fundamentals.
>>>> Ah! But the lobian machine too can be shown allergic to such 
>>>> argument.
>>>> It's a universal dissident. Unforunately, humans, like dog are still
>>>> attracted to the practical philosophy according to which the "boss 
>>>> is
>>>> right" (especially when wrong!)
>>
>>>> Bruno
>>
>>>> PS Perhaps this week I will got the time to send the next post in 
>>>> the
>>>> "observer-moment = Sigma_1 sentence".
>>
>>> Well, I'm pleased to hear the lobian machine is a 'universal
>>> dissident'.  I wouldn't want to imply that 'the boss is right'.  All 
>>> I
>>> was implying was that (in the case of super-intelligence) the boss
>>> would be *stronger*.  Whether the boss is right or not, we little 
>>> guys
>>> wouldn't have much power so our negotiating power would be seriously
>>> limited initally.  The best that could be hoped for from such a
>>> hypothetical 'social contract' in the beginning is that the SI 
>>> doesn't
>>> hurt us.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> You know I am confident that "real" SI would not hurt you, except by
>> accident. The problem is that we cannot distinguished "real" SI from
>> "real" SI, er.... I mean real super-intelligent (Sintel) from real
>> super-idiot (Sidiot).
>>
>> I guess that is why democracy, when it is normally functioning,  is 
>> the
>> best of the system, allowing to change your mind about the people we
>> are delegating power to.        (by democracy I mean mainly here:
>> education + "repeated"  well organized election).
>>
>> Note that normally "real SIntell" will never present themselves as
>> "SIntell", only real Sidiot would do that. So, although,  there does
>> not exist a way to test Super intelligence , there are some cases 
>> where
>> we can  be almost sure to be in front of Super-stupidity ...
>>
>> Good week-end Marc, and All,    (please revise the notion of 
>> bijection.
>> Are everybody convinced that N is in bijection with N X N, and with N 
>> X
>> N X N X N X... ?
>>
>> David, do you mind if I send next week your solution (which were
>> correct) of the exercises I gave online once to the list?   I am sure
>> it could help some other. All that  is needed to get Church's thesis
>> eventually right. Recall that Church thesis is one half of COMP.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
>
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