Evgenii,

## Advertising

Why don't you make a course for dummies about this? (For example inSecond Life)

`Because in the second life, the students already know that they are in`

`a virtual reality :)`

It looks more difficult to explain this with first life inquirers.

`But is it, really? Got the feeling that those who don't understand are`

`those who don't study, or don't make the necessary work. Psychological`

`contingent reasons? (I think on UDA, not on AUDA, which needs a one`

`year course in mathematical logic/computer science).`

`But your suggestion is pleasing and fun, and who knows, I might think`

`about it.`

That will not cure my computer addiction, though :( Bruno

On 11.07.2011 16:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:On 11 Jul 2011, at 14:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:On 10.07.2011 17:32 Bruno Marchal said the following:On 10 Jul 2011, at 15:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:...Let's take the color yellow for example. If you build a brain out of ideal ping pong balls, or digital molecular emulations, does it perceive yellow from 580nm oscillations of electromagnetism automatically, or does it see yellow when it's own emulated units are vibrating on the functionally proportionate scale to itself? Does the ping pong ball brain see it's own patterns of collisions as yellow or does yellow = electromagnetic ~580nm and nothing else. At what point does the yellow come in? Where did it come from? Were there other options? Can there ever be new colors? From where? What is the minimum mechanical arrangement required to experience yellow?Any mechanical arrangement defining a self-referentially correct machine automatically leads the mechanical arrangement to distinguish third person point of view and first person points of view. The machine already have a theory of qualia, with an explanation of why qualia and quanta seems different.Bruno, Could you please make a reference to a good text for dummies about that statement? (But please not in French)I am afraid the only text which explains this in simple way is my sane04 paper(*). It is in the second part (the interview of the machine), and it uses Smullyan popular explanation of the logic of self-reference (G) from his "Forever Undecided" popular book. Popular attempts to explain Gödel's theorem are often incorrect, and the whole matter is very delicate. Philosophers, like Lucas, or physicists, like Penrose, illustrate that it is hard to explain Gödel's result to non logicians. I'm afraid the time has not yet come for popular explanation of machine's theology. Let me try a short attempt. By Gödel's theorem we know that for any machine, the set of true propositions about the machine is bigger than the set of the propositions provable by the machine. Now, Gödel already knew that a machine can prove that very fact about herself, and so can be "aware" of its own limitations. Such a machine is forced to discover a vast range of true proposition about her that she cannot prove, and such a machine can study the logic to which such propositions are obeying. Then, it is a technical fact that such logics (of the non provable, yet discoverable propositions) obeys some theories of qualia which have been proposed in the literature (by J.L. Bell, for example). So the machine which introspects itself (the mystical machine) is bounded to discover the gap between the provable and truth (the G-G* gap), but also the difference between all the points of view (third person = provable, first person = provable-and-true, observable with probability 1 = provable-and-consistent, "feelable" = provable-and-consistent-and-true, etc.). When the machine studies the logic of those propositions, she rediscovers more or less a picture of reality akin to the mystical rationalists (like Plato, Plotinus, but also Nagasena, and many others). If you are familiar with the logic G, I might be able to explain more. If not, read Smullyan's book, perhaps. All this is new material, and, premature popular version can be misleading. Elementary logic is just not yet well enough known. In fact, the UDA *is* the human-popular version of all this. The AUDA is the proper machine's technical version. If you read the sane04(*) paper, feel free to ask for any precisions. Best, Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.

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-list@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.