On 08 Oct 2012, at 20:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Deutsch is right.

Deutsch is not completely wrong, just unaware of the progress in theoretical computer science, which explains why some paths are necessarily long, and can help to avoid the confusion between consciousness, intelligence, competence, imagination, creativity.

I have already explain why, since recently I think that all UMs are already conscious, including the computer you are looking at right now. But that consciousness is still disconnected, or only trivially connected, to you and the environment.

Since always I think PA, ZF, and all Löbian machines are as conscious as you and me. But still not connected, except on mathematical notion. I have explained and justified that proving in formal theory, or in a way that we think we could formalize if we and the times, is a way to actually talk to such machine, and the 8 hypostases are why any such little machine can already told us. They are sort of reincarnation of plotinus, to put it in that way.

It is easy to confuse them with zombie, as the actual dialog has to be made by hand, with transpiration. But such machine are already as conscious as all Löbian entities, from the octopus to us.

Consciousness and intelligence are both not definable, and have complex positive and negative feedback on competence.

General intelligence of machine needs *us* opening our mind.

The singularity is in the past. Now we can only make UMs as deluded as us, for the best, or the worth. They have already a well defined self, a repesentation of the self, some connection with truth (where the experience will come from), but here the organic entities and billions years of advantage. But they evolves also, and far quicker that the organic.

No progress in AI? I see explosive progress. Especially in the 1930 for the main thing: the discovery of the Universal Machine (UM).

Searle is right.

Searle is invalid. Old discussion.
He confuses levels of description. There is nothing to add to Hofstadter and Dennett critics of the argument in Mind'I.

It is the same error as confusing "proving A" and "emulating a machine proving A". ZF can prove the consistency of PA, and PA cannot. But PA can prove that ZF can prove the consistency of PA. The first proof provide an emulation of the second, but PA and ZF keeps their distinct identities in that process.


Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without personal investment, there is no drive to develop right hemisphere awareness - to look around for enemies and friends, to be vigilant. These kinds of capacities cannot be burned into ROM, they have to be discovered through unscripted participation. They have to be able to lie and have a reason to do so.

I'm not sure about Deutsch's purported Popper fetish, but if that's true, I can see why that would be the case. My hunch is that although Ben Goertzel is being fair to Deutsch, he may be distorting Deutsch's position somewhat as far as I question that he is suggesting that we invest in developing Philosophy instead of technology. Maybe he is, but it seems like an exaggeration. It seems to me that Deutsch is advocating the very reasonable position that we evaluate our progress with AGI before doubling down on the same strategy for the next 60 years. Nobody whats to cut off AGI funding - certainly not me, I just think that the approach has become unscientific and sentimental like alchemists with their dream of turning lead into gold. Start playing with biology and maybe you'll have something. It will be a little messier though, since with biology and unlike with silicon computers, when you start getting close to something with human like intelligence, people tend to object when you leave twitching half-persons moaning around the laboratory. You will know you have real AGI because there will be a lot of people screaming.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-iG7-y2ddXsJ .
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to