On 26 Sep 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I don't deny that a computer can optimize itself,
but I deny that the operation is autonomous,
meaning independent, for ultimately it is software
dependent, using a program written by an outsider.
Hi Roger,
Please think a while about that "independence" means here. How
could you even know of the existence of a think that is completely
independent of you? Autonomy, independence, etc. are "relative"
terms in the sense that there is always an implied "ideal" condition
and/or context that we can define them and all of their "weakened"
versions.
True intelligence and true consciousness must be
to whatever extent possible independent of outside
help or perspective.
Sure, but is that even possible given the necessary requirements
of consciousness? Does consciousness need to have as its object more
than just itself? How does even a "consistent solipsist" know that
it exists?
Isn't the self 1p ? not sure.
The self is 1p, by definition.
Hmm.... The self obtained by the Dx = "xx" method is entirely 3p, and
is the one usually denoted by Gödel's predicate: Bp.
To get the 1p, we connect it to truth, which makes sense as Bp -> p,
although true (trivially as we limit ouself to ideally correct
machine) is not provable by the machine, so Bp & p defined a new modal
box, having an arithmetical interpretation, but no more definable or
representable in arithmetic. That is the 1p. As it has no name or no
representation, it acts like a little god; and it plays the role of
the inner God in the arithmetical intepretation of Plotinus.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
9/25/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 10:39:14
Subject: Re: questions on machines, belief, awareness, and knowledge
On 9/24/2012 9:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
The computer can mechanically prove something,
but it cannot know that it did so. It cannot
sit back with a beer and muse over how smart it is.
Hi Roger,
What you are considering that a computer does not have is the
ability to model itself within its environment and compute
optimizations
of such a model to guide its future choices. This can be well
represented within a computational framework and it is something that
Bruno has worked out in his comp model. (My only beef with Bruno is
that
his model is so abstract that it is completely disconnected from the
physical world and thus has a "body" problem.)
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
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
.
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.
