Hi William R. Buckley 

Living systems must have intelligence, 
the ability to make autonomus choices,
that is, autonomous will, which must be free
at least to some extent.  Thus to be indeterminant,
hence non-computable.

Thus we  cannot define life in objective terms.
Only the living cell can know it is alive,
that in principle it has a name......

" The Naming of Cats
The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
   It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.

First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
   Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey -
   All of them sensible everyday names.

There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
   Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter -
   But all of them sensible everyday names.

But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
   A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep his tail perpendicular,
   Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?

Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
   Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum -
   Names that never belong to more than one cat.

But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
   And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover -
   But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.

When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
   The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
   Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
       His ineffable effable
       Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name. "

- T.S. Eliot
   (from "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats")

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: William R. Buckley 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:36:22
Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Bruno:
Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene.
All:
Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which 
they exist).
Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon 
the material 
from which they are constructed.
Methinks that Roger mistakes life for the substrate.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Roger,
On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote:



Hi Bruno Marchal 
I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware,
neither of which are their own. 
A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and 
hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command "self", but 
this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives  "x"x"", then D"D" 
gives "D"D"". D"D" gives a description of itself.
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems.



And so, machines cannot do anything
not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by 
the hardware.  
Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said 
itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals 
in nature. 
Very simple program ("simple" meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex 
behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that 
by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep 
them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work.



So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
make decisions intended by the software programmer.
You hope.
Bruno



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/28/2012 
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: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:



Hi meekerdb 
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own,
they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. 
Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the 
choosing,
and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system.
Godel, perhaps, I speculate. 
I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines 
are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science 
is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much 
autonomous, a bit like children education.  
Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so.
Bruno



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/27/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree different implementations of intelligence have different 
>> capabilities and 
>> roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any 
>> intelligence (so long 
>> as infinities or true randomness are not required).
>
> And now a subtle point. Perhaps.
>
> The point is that computers are general enough to replicate intelligence EVEN 
> if 
> infinities and true randomness are required for it.
>
> Imagine that our consciousness require some ORACLE. For example under the 
> form of a some 
> non compressible sequence 11101000011101100011111101010110100001... (say)
>
> Being incompressible, that sequence cannot be part of my brain at my 
> substitution level, 
> because this would make it impossible for the doctor to copy my brain into a 
> finite 
> string. So such sequence operates "outside my brain", and if the doctor copy 
> me at the 
> right comp level, he will reconstitute me with the right "interface" to the 
> oracle, so I 
> will survive and stay conscious, despite my consciousness depends on that 
> oracle.
>
> Will the UD, just alone, or in arithmetic, be able to copy me in front of 
> that oracle?
>
> Yes, as the UD dovetails on all programs, but also on all inputs, and in this 
> case, he 
> will generate me successively (with large delays in between) in front of all 
> finite 
> approximation of the oracle, and (key point), the first person indeterminacy 
> will have 
> as domain, by definition of first person, all the UD computation where my 
> virtual brain 
> use the relevant (for my consciousness) part of the oracle.
>
> A machine can only access to finite parts of an oracle, in course of a 
> computation 
> requiring oracle, and so everything is fine.

That's how I imagine COMP instantiates the relation between the physical world 
and 
consciousness; that the physical world acts like the oracle and provides 
essential 
interactions with consciousness as a computational process. Of course that 
doesn't 
require that the physical world be an oracle - it may be computable too.

Brent

>
> Of course, if we need the whole oracular sequence, in one step, then comp 
> would be just 
> false, and the brain need an infinite interface.
>
> The UD dovetails really on all programs, with all possible input, even 
> infinite non 
> computable one.
>
> 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.
-- 
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.
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.

-- 
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