On 07 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Colin Hales wrote:
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature',
International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1,
The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic!
Like others, I don't succeed in getting it, neither at home nor at
From the abstract I am afraid you might not have taken into account
(many) conversations. Most of what you say about the impossibility of
building an artificial scientist is provably correct in the (weak)
theory. It is unfortunate that you derive this from comp
is inconsistent. Actually, comp prevents "artificial intelligence".
does not prevent the existence, and even the apparition, of
machines. But this might happen *despite* humans, instead of
'thanks to the
humans'. This is related with the fact that we cannot know which
are ourselves. Yet, we can make copy at some level (in which case
know what we are really creating or recreating, and then, also,
of bugs in regular programs can evolve. Or we can get them
It is also relate to the fact that we don't *want* intelligent
which is really a computer who will choose its user, if ... he want
prefer them to be slaves. It will take time before we recognize them
Of course the 'naturalist comp' theory is inconsistent. Not sure
that into account too.
Artificial intelligence will always be more mike fishing or exploring
spaces, and we might *discover* strange creatures. Arithmetical
truth is a
universal zoo. Well, no, it is really a jungle. We don't know what
there. We can only scratch a tiny bit of it.
Now, let us distinguish two things, which are very different:
"1)" is necessary for the developpment of "2)", but "2)" has a
feedback on "1)".
I have already given on this list what I call the smallest theory of
By definition a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid. And a
can be stupid for two reason:
she believes that she is intelligent, or
she believes that she is stupid.
Of course, this is arithmetized immediately in a weakening of G,
C having as axioms the modal normal axioms and rules + Dp -> ~BDp.
(arithmetical consistency) can play the role of intelligence, and Bf
(inconsistance) plays the role of stupidity. G* and G proves BDt ->
G* proves BBf -> Bf (but not G!).
This illustrates that "1)" above might come from Löbianity, and
(the scientist) is governed by theoretical artificial intelligence
Smith, Oherson, Stob, Weinstein). Here the results are not just
NON-constructive, but are *necessarily* so. Cleverness is just
that we cannot program. But we can prove, non constructively, the
of powerful learning machine. We just cannot recognize them, or
It is like with the algorithmically random strings, we cannot
by a short algorithm, but we can generate all of them by a very short
So, concerning intelligence/consciousness (as opposed to
think we have passed the "singularity". Nothing is more
intelligent/conscious than a virgin universal machine. By
programming it, we
can only make his "soul" fell, and, in the worst case, we might get
something as stupid as human, capable of feeling itself superior, for
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at