On 16 Jan 2012, at 17:08, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

" Consciousness theories are easy because there are no facts they need to explain"

" What? With comp, not only you have to explain the qualia"

With ANY theory of consciousness you have to explain qualia,


and every consciousness theory does as well or as badly as any other in doing that.

So you believe that the theory according to which consciousness is a gift by a creationist God is as bad as the theory according to which consciousness is related to brain activity?

" but it has been proved that you have to explain the quanta as well,

I don't know what that means.

It means that
1) the quanta does not exist primitively but emerge, in the comp case, from number relations. 2) that physicalism is false, and that you have to derive the physical laws from those number relations. More exactly you have to derive the beliefs in the physical laws from those number relations.

" and this without assuming a physical reality."

But I do know that assuming reality does not seem to be a totally outrageous assumption.

Sure. But I was talking on the assumption of a primitively physical reality. That is shown, by the UD Argument, not be working when we assume that we are digitalisable machine. It is not outrageous, it is useless, non sensical, wrong with the usual Occam razor, in the same sense that it is wrong that invisible horse pulling cars would be the real reason why car moves.

> but there is an astronomical number of things that need to be explained to understand how intelligence works.

Not really. It is just that [...]

If you know how intelligence works you can make a super intelligent computer right now and you're well on your way to becoming a trillionaire. It seems to me that when discussing this very complex subject people use the phrase "it's just" a bit too much.

You seem quite unfair. I was saying, in completo: "It is just that intelligent things organize themselves in non predictable way, at all." The "it just" was not effective, and that was my point!

This means that indeed we can write simple program leading to intelligence, but I can hardly be trillionnaire with that because they might need incompressible long time to show intelligence. Better to use nature's trick to copy from what has already been done. My whole point is that intelligence is not a constructive concept, like consciousness you cannot define it. You can define competence, and competence leads already itself to many non constructive notions and comparisons. The details are tricky and there is a very large litterature in theoretical artificial intelligence and learning theories.

Simple programs leading to intelligence are "grow, diverse, and multiply as much as possible" in big but finite environment. or "help yourself", etc. The UD can also be see as a little programs leading to the advent of intelligence (assuming mechanism), but not in a necessarily tractable way.

We discuss in a context where the goal is not to do artificial intelligence engineering, but the goal is to find a theory of everything, including persons, consciousness, etc.

"intelligent things organize themselves in non predictable way, at all. The basic are simple (addition and multiplication)"

That's like saying I know how to cure cancer, it's basically simple, "just" arrange the atoms in cancer cells so that they are no longer cancerous. It's easy to learn the fundamentals of Chess, the rules of the game, but that does not mean you understand all the complexities and subtleties of it and are now a grandmaster.

OK. That was my point. I never pretended to even know what intelligence really is. You should not mock the trivial points I make, because they are used in a non completely trivial way to show that the assumption of mechanism makes physics a branch of number theory (which is a key point in the search of a theory of everything). A reasoning made clear = a succession of trivial points.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to