What is DNA if not software? On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist > > Pre-ordained is a religious position > And we aren't controlled by software. > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] <[email protected]> >> 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, [email protected] <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected].<[email protected].> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ >> [email protected]. <[email protected].> >> 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 >> [email protected].<[email protected].> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ >> [email protected]. <[email protected].> >> 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 >> [email protected].<[email protected].> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ >> [email protected]. <[email protected].> >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
