What is DNA if not software?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Pre-ordained is a religious position
> And we aren't controlled by software.
>
> 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:* Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
> intelligence
>
>  Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
> in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
>> hardware,
>> neither of which are their own.
>> BRUNO: 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.
>> �
>> ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
>> �
>> If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new,
>> it is merely following
>> instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to
>> some algorithm.
>> �
>> If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish.
>> Which is to say that
>> synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought.
>>
>> More below, but I will stop here for now.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the
>> hardware.
>> Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct
>> (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No.
>> And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author
>> in his software program and constrained by the hardware.
>>
>> What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly
>> free will.
>> Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means
>> freely, of
>> its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not
>> limited by it.
>>
>>
>> BRUNO:� 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.
>> �
>> ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic,
>> although it no doubt has its own logic.
>>
>> BRUNO: 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.
>> �
>> This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought
>> was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
>> But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer
>> does still must follow its own internal logic,
>> contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language,
>> even if those calculations are of infinite complexity.
>> Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that
>> must be true.�
>>
>> So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
>> make decisions intended by the software programmer.
>>
>>
>> BRUNO: You hope.
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <+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 <+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.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+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.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+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.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
>> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+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.
>
>  --
> 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