Evgenii,

On 05 Feb 2012, at 14:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I would agree that profit should be a tool. On the other hand it is working this way. There are rules of a game that are adjusted by the government accordingly and then what is not not forbidden is allowed. In such a setup, if a new idea allows us to increase profit, then it might be a good idea.

Only if the good idea is based on real work, or reasonable (founded) speculation. But if the idea is a lie (like the idea that drugs are very dangerous and should be prohibited) then the profit will be equivalent to stealing, and everybody will get poorer, except locally for some bandits. Few years of prohibition of alcohol has created Al Capone, you can guess what has brought 70 years of planetary marijuana prohibition ... Once the bandits have the power, as in the USA since Nixon, I would say, the notion of honest and dishonest profit blurs completely, the money becomes gray, and we become all hostages of the special interest of a minority. The economy becomes a big pyramidal game, where the top steal the money of the bottom, until the system crashes.




I would say that the statement "Emotions are ineffable" excludes them from scientific considerations.

I don't see why. "emotions are ineffable" is a perfect scientific statement about the emotions. What is true is that emotions cannot be used *in* the scientific statement, but you can do scientific statement *about* emotions. Indeed, nothing escape the domain on which we can develop a scientific attitude, from emotions to the big one ineffable. What is forbidden (or invalid) is the use of emotion in scientific discourse. You cannot say "the lemma is correct because I feel so", or "1+1=2 because God told me".



Then we should not mention emotions at all. This however leads to a practical problem. For a mass product, for example electronics, emotions of customers are very important to get/keep/increase the market share. Hence if you do not consider emotions at all, you do not get paid.

I can agree. Emotions is part of the panorama, and we can deal with them, with or without emotions. But emotions can also be misused, like in the fear selling business of the bandits.

Bruno



On 04.02.2012 22:42 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenyi,

On 04 Feb 2012, at 18:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Also, if your theory is that we (in the 3-sense) are not Turing
emulable, you have to explain us why, and what it adds to the
explanation.

Bruno,

I do not have a theory.

That's OK. Technically, me neither. I am a logician. All what I
assert is that two (weak) theories, mechanism and materialism are
incompatible. I don't hide that my heart invites my brain to listen
to what some rich universal machine can already prove, and guess by
themselves, about themselves.




As for comp, my only note that I have made recently was that if to
look at the current state-of-art of computer architectures and
algorithms, then it is clear that any practical implementation is
out of reach.

Well, OK. We disagree here. AUDA is the illustration that many simple
machine, basically any first order specification of a universal
system (machine, programming language) extended with the
corresponding induction axioms, Those are the one I call the Löbian
machine, they are already as clever as you and me. By lacking our
layers of historical and prehistorical prejudices, they seems even
rather wiser, too. (In my opinion). AUDA is the theology of the
self-introspecting LUM. It gives an octuple of hypostases (inside
views of arithmetic by locally arithmetical being) which mirrors
rather well the discourse of the Platonists, neoplatonists and
mystics in all cultures (as well argued by Aldous Huxley, for
example).

You laptop is one inch close to Löbianity, but why would you want
that humans make Löbian machines when Introspection is not even in
the human curriculum. I begin to think that each time a human become
Löbian, he got banned, exiled, burned, imprizonned, ignored, sent in
asylum, or a perhaps become a big artist, musician or something.






Whether comp is true of false in principle, frankly speaking I have
no idea.

Me neither. Practically, mechanism is more a right (to say yes or no
to the doctor).


I guess that my subconsciousness still believes in primitive
materialism, as consciously I experience a question Why it is bad
to say that math is mind dependent.

Human math is human mind dependent. This does not imply that math, or
a "metaphysically clean" part of math (like arithmetic or computer
science) might not be the "cause/reason" of the stable persistent
beliefs in a physical reality. The physical reality would be a
projective view of arithmetic from inside.



Yet, I should confess that after following discussions at this list
I see some problems with such a statement and pass doubts back to
my subconsciousness. Let us see what happens.

I still listen to the lectures of Prof Hoenen. Recently I have
finished Theorien der Wahrheit and right now I am at
Beweistheorien. When I am done with Prof Hoenen, as promised I will
go through your The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. Yet, I
do not know when it happens, as it takes more time as I thought
originally.

As for computers having emotions, I am a practitioner and I am
working right now closely with engineers. I should say that the
modern market would love electronics with emotions. Just imagine
such a slogan

Smartphone with Emotions* (*scientifically proved)

This will never happen. Never. More exactly, if this happens, it
means you are in front of a con crackpot. Emotion are ineffable,
although a range of the corresponding behavior is easy to simulate.
To have genuine emotion, you need to be entangled to genuine complex
long computation. But their outputs are easy to simulate. A friend of
mine made a piece of theater with a little robot-dog, emulating
emotions, and the public reacted correspondingly. In comp there is no
philosophical zombies, but there are plenty of local zombies
possible, like cartoon cops on the roads which makes their effect, or
that emotive robot-dog. But an emotion, by its very nature cannot be
scientifically proved. All what happens is that a person succeeds in
being recognize as such by other persons. Computers might already be
conscious. It might be our lack of civility which prevents us to
listen to them.

But you were probably joking with the "*scientifically proved".

Concerning reality, science never proves. It only suggests
interrogatively. If not, it is pseudo science or pseudo religion.



It would be a killer application. Hence I do not understand why
people here that state "a computer has already emotions" do not
explore such a wonderful opportunity. After all, whether it is
comp, physicalism, monism, dualism or whatever does not matter.
What is really important is to make profit.


Hmm... I am not sure. What is important is to be able to eat when
hungry, and to drink when thirsty and some amount of heat. What is
hoped for is the larger freedom spectrum for the exploratory
opportunities.

Profit might be a tool, hardly a goal by itself.

If profit is the goal, you get the bandits in power. Quickly.
Stealing is locally easy (and globally disastrous).

You can build cute smartphone to attract the kids, but you don't have
to brainwash them with the last theory in fashion. I think.

Bruno

--
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 .


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.

Reply via email to