Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) > universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even > maximally conscious. > What could "maximally conscious" mean? My intuition says quite strongly that consciousness is a dynamic open-ended process and that there is no such thing as maximally conscious (exept maybe in the trivial sense of "simply conscious at all"). I can't even conceive what this could be like. Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Then adding induction gives them Löbianity, and > this makes them self-conscious (which might already be a delusion of > some sort). Why do you think it could be a delusion? This would be a bit reminscent of buddhism. For me it sounds like quite a terrible thought. After all it would mean all progress is in a way illusory and maybe not even desirable, whereas I really wish (and pragmatically believe) that eternal progress is the thing that can fullfill our ideals of truth, conscious insight and happiness. Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I oppose intelligence/consciousness and competence/ > ingenuity. The first is needed to develop the later, but the later has > a negative feedback on the first. Can you explain this? It seems to me that there is no clear line between intelligence and competence and that some kind of competences (like aligning yourself with the beliefs of society) can limit intelligence, but some help to develop more intelligence (like doing science). -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p31854353.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.