On 07 Feb 2009, at 19:05, Jack Mallah wrote:
> Bruno is still pushing his crackpot UDA. What is it that you (still) don't understand? (good idea to resume UDA again, and so the question is asked also to the newbies). Please help yourself by printing the PDF slide 1) The (re)definition of computationalism, or digital mechanism, in the form of "yes doctor" + Church thesis? Note that the list has convince me to suppress the "arithmetical realism" hypothesis, because it is contained in the "Church thesis", and some people put to much metaphyical baggage in the word "realism". (step 1). 2) The first person/third person distinction (like Schmidhuber, who leaves the list after complaining this distinction made no sense)? Is it the invariance of the first person experience for the addition of third person delays which makes problem? (step 2) 3) have you a problem with the first person indeterminacy in self- duplication experience (my main old contribution) like Chalmers, who lives the room at this step when I explained UDA at the ASSC meeting in Brussels many years ago? (step 3) 4) The invariance of any method for quantifying first person indeterminacy with respect to the addition of asymmetrical delays? (step 4) 5) The same in experiences where the third person "original" is not annihilated? (step 5) 6) The same in experiences where the reconstitution, although still "physical" are virtual (step 6). Most people have no problem up to here. Sometimes Brent Meeker complains that I should make clearer that the environment can still play some role at this stage, but this is part of my definition of "generalized brain". 7) So, is it in the seventh step: where you are in front of a concrete never ending running of a Universal Dovetailer? Do you have a problem with the idea of universal dovetailing? (step 7) > I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, .... 8) Are you acknowledging you get the UDA (1...7)? It is just UDA_8 you have some trouble with? Then it means you have made some progress since our last conversation. I could stop here, because MGA can be eliminated with some Occam Razor. MGA is really the little cerise on the top of the cake. I do have been myself a bit annoyed by its subtle taste and difficulty until I discovered recently, through conversation with patient (and polite) people in the list, that the difficulties reside more in a too quick understanding of the seventh step than in MGA per se. Many are not always clear about the distinction between what is a computation (in Platonia), and a description of a computation (in platonia). The progress is that I have now a version of MGA in two steps: MGA1 and MGA2. Forget MGA3: it is a product of my non awareness that the seventh step has to be exposed with more caution, especially to non-mathematician. This is what I am planning to do, with the help of Kim, and this includes to start the math (needed here) from scratch. The hope is to make the ending of the UDA, and the beginning of the AUDA, more available to a wider audience. Concerning your paper I have nothing to add that has not been already told or asked to you. Obviously it does not take into account the Universal Dovetailer Argument. I see you have make some progress on the subject (but not yet on diplomacy, unless your "crackpot" wording is just an affectionate mark: I could be OK with that. Well we will see). Welcome back to the list Jacques, Bruno 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
