Yes, and that other thing is the interpreter and constructor which is directed 
by 

the information represented by the nucleotide sequence that is any particular 

DNA molecule.

 

Again, the genome is not inside the DNA; it is represented by the DNA.

 

The interpreter and constructor are the cell.

 

Information in context.

 

Just as von Neumann envisioned.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot 
exhibitintelligence

 

Hi William R. Buckley 

 

A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.

 

 

Roger Clough,  <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

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 <mailto:bill.buck...@gmail.com>  

Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  

Time: 2012-08-30, 12:42:17

Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot 
exhibitintelligence

 

This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:

  So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.

So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

Roger Clough,  <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

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 <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>  

Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  

Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

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 <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>  

Receiver: everything-list <mailto: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 <mailto:+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 <mailto:+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/  <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. 
<mailto:+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
<mailto:+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>  
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.  
<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. 
<mailto:+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
<mailto:+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>  
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.  
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.> 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/  <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. 
<mailto:+everything-list@googlegroups.com.>  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
<mailto:+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.>  
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.  
<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 
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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 
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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 
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

-- 
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