On 25 Oct 2012, at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
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 Löbianity, 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.
Löbianity is the treshold at which any new axiom added will create
and enlarge the machine ignorance. It is the utimate modesty
treshold.
Bruno,
Might there be still other axioms (which we are not aware of, or at
least do not use) that could lead to even higher states of
consciousness than we presently have?
Yes, there are interesting transfinities below and beyond omega_1^CK
(the Kleene Church first non constructive ordinal). This has
plausibly, with comp, some relation with possible consciousness
states (but that is not obvious and depends on definitions).
Also, it isn't quite clear to me how something needs to be added to
Turing universality to expand the capabilities of consciousness, if
all consciousness is the result of computation.
Gosh! It is only recent, for me, that I even think that universal
machines are already conscious. I thought Lôbianity was needed. But
then it is basically the same as the consciousness-->self-
consciousness type of consciousness "enrichment/delusion". In a
sense, abstract universality is maximally conscious, maximally
undeluded, or awake, somehow.
This is not quite what I meant (I remain undecided on your
proposition that all Turing machines are conscious).
Not all Turing machines. Only the universal one. And perhaps in a
trivial sense (a bit like 0 is a number, as number meant numerous
before).
What I meant is that any Turing machine could perform any computation,
any *universal* Turing machine can do that.
so if all conscious states are the result of computation, then all
that is needed to produce that conscious state is any Turing machine
(running the appropriate computation). Therefore, if computation is
all that is needed, why do different axioms have to come into it?
Why is an induction axiom needed for human consciousness?
The induction axioms is what gives Löbianity. At that moment, the
logic of believability/probability, is governed by G (for the provable
by you part) and G* (for the true part about you).
And that moment, you have already strong cognitive ability. They are
enough to make you understand that you are a universal machine, and
you can get the worries, as they can know that they can trash and that
they have no guaranty. They know that they have to welcome insecurity
as a price for their universal liberty.
RA is basically just universal, and still innocent, if you want. PA,
which is basically RA + the induction axiom, akready know she is
universal, and all the 'shit' which accompany this.
It is not necessary for human consciousness, but for any self-
consciousness, or reflexive consciousness.
But Turing universality is cheap and concerns an ability to imitate
other machine, not to understand them, so for provability and
beliefs, and knowledge there are transfinite improvement and
enlargement possible.
We are not just conscious, we differentiate in developing beliefs,
and get greater and greater view on truth.
I can see how different axioms are needed to justify different
beliefs, but it isn't so clear to me how they are needed for
different conscious states.
Unless we are talking about conscious states like of believing 7 is
prime because of some other axioms.
Or believing there is a universe, or there is god, or there is
something ineffable. Consciousness state are all true justified
(consciously or not) belief. And so they are also knowledge state,
even if their content can be relatively false.
It is like you might be near doing a kind of "Searle error"
perhaps. A computation can emulate consciousness, but the
computation is not conscious, only the person emulated by that
computations, she can always progress infinitely (even if
"restricted" on the search of arithmetical truth), develop more and
more beliefs and knowledge. Particular universal machines will
develop particular parts (even if transfinite) of arithmetical truth.
But G and G*, that is the modal logic of the provability of the
Löbian machines, is a treshold. Despite growing transfinitely on her
knowledge(s) of the arithmetical truth, as long as they remain self-
referentially correct, they will obey to G and G*, for their theory
of provability. If consistent, they will for ever been able to prove
that they are consistent, for example, and they can prove that for
themselves. The abstract theology is invariant despite the evolution
of the arithmetical content of the B in Bp. PA and ZF have very
different arithmetical beliefs, but both obeys to G and G*.
Consciousness, from the first person perspective is more related to
"all computations" going through my states, than any particular
computations. The living self is not a computer, it is a believer,
supported by infinities of computer (by UDA).
I am happy you are open to the idea that universal machine are all
conscious, it is then, the state of "you" before developing any more
beliefs than those making you universal. Your first person
indeterminacy, in that state, is all other possible machine/dreams.
I have had a similar idea, that there are some (one?) universal
starting points (states), which lead to all others. Perhaps this
computation state is like an empty or null state, or perhaps close
to an infinite all encompassing state.
OK. We have to succeed in making clearer the comp supervenience
thesis. The difficulty is that it is counterintuitive. Consciousness
is not related to a state, but to a relative state, involving many
computations, notably universal machines, relative universal machines,
and the infinity of universal machine in the "physical" background.
Bruno
The Löbian machine knows that they are universal, and so knows the
price to pay, for "staying consistent", like the possibility of
crashing, in front of the unknown arithmetical truth.
Thanks,
You are welcome.
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
.
--
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.
