Hi Bruno Marchal
1p is to know by acquaintance (only possible to humans).
I conjecture that any statement pertaining to humans containing 1p is TRUE.
3p is to know by description (works for both humans and computers).
I believe that any statement pertaining to computers containing 1p is FALSE.
Consciousness would be to know that you are conscious, or
for a real person, 1p(1p) = TRUE
and saying that he is conscious to others would be 3p(1p) = TRUE
or even (3p(1p(1p))) = TRUE
But a computer cannot experience anything (is blocked from 1p), or
for a computer, 3p (1p) = FALSE (or any statement containing 1p)
but 3p(3p) = TRUE (or any proposition not containing 1p = TRUE)
Roger Clough, [email protected]
10/21/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 09:56:39
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as "responding to relations".
Now the "Self"? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level of thinking,
more so than the average (animalic?) mind. - OR: we have no idea. What WE call
'Self-Ccness' is definitely a human attribute because WE identify it that way.
I never talked to a cauliflower to clarify whether she feels like having a
self? (In cauliflowerese, of course).
My feeling was first that all homeotherm animals have self-consciousness, as
they have the ability to dream, easily realted to the ability to build a
representation of one self. Then I have enlarged the spectrum up to some
spiders and the octopi, just by reading a lot about them, looking video.
But this is just a personal appreciation. For the plant, let us say I know
nothing, although I supect possible consciousness, related to different
scalings.
The following theory seems to have consciousness, for different reason (the
main one is that it is Turing Universal):
x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)
x *0 = 0
x*s(y) = x*y + x
But once you add the very powerful induction axioms: which say that if a
property F is true for zero, and preserved by the successor operation, then it
is true for all natural numbers. That is the infinity of axioms:
(F(0) & Ax(F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> AxF(x),
with F(x) being any formula in the arithmetical language (and thus defined with
"0, s, +, *),
Then you get L?ianity, and this makes it as much conscious as you and me.
Indeed, they got a rich theology about which they can develop maximal
awareness, and even test it by comparing the physics retrievable by that
theology, and the observation and inference on their most probable
neighborhoods.
L?ianity is the treshold at which any new axiom added will create and enlarge
the machine ignorance. It is the utimate modesty treshold.
Bruno
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 19:19, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO all life must have some degree of consciousness
or it cannot perceive its environment.
Are you sure?
Would you say that the plants are conscious? I do think so, but I am not sure
they have self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness accelerates the information treatment, and might come from
the need of this for the self-movie living creature having some important mass.
"all life" is a very fuzzy notion.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
10/17/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so how and
why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to this means
your ideas are fatally flawed.
I don't see this as a *fatal* flaw. Evolution, as you've noted, is not a
paradigm of efficient design. Consciousness might just be a side-effect
But that's exactly what I've been saying for months, unless Darwin was dead
wrong consciousness must be a side effect of intelligence, so a intelligent
computer must be a conscious computer. And I don't think Darwin was dead wrong.
Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be deeper, in the
"evolution/selection" of the laws of physics from the coherent dreams
(computations from the 1p view) in arithmetic.
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].
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.
--
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.
