On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote:
Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below
by using the word "dasein". "Being there ".
Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the
world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there.
I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if
you read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion.
Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a
machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of
machine, or in any third person objective term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bruno Marchal
This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but
you seem to speak of the world and mind
as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the
world and mind as we live them,
not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds.
The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term,
with objective and subjective property.
It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually
diving in.
Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually
eating it.
But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to
their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more
importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but
please read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in
theology since more than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with
comp, the physical reality is a non computational appearance obeying
very precise law that we can test. So my main point is that comp is a
testable theory.
Bruno
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/15/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-14, 05:38:31
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
Hi William,
On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe
seems rather obvious.
I don't think anything is obvious here.
What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are
dreaming? What is your theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?
Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient
I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with
omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational
universality entails the impossibility of omniscience.
solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.
?
Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.
I agree with this. I would say that information is really context
selection.
Bruno
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
.
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.
