Re: Can a computer make independent choices ?

```
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 GĂ¶del'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, rclo...@verizon.net
9/25/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
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 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