# Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.

```
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:```
```
```
```

On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

```
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic.
```
```
Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning?
```
```
Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this.
```

```
Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely?
```
```
Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious.
```

```
```Where does provability by mathematical logic come in?
```
```
```
I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief:
```[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p (for the "rich" machines).
Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p).
```
In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p -> p) -> []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition <>t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious.
```

```
```Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith
```
```
```
Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said "unconscious faith", I meant "unconscious inference of something" and the "unconscious" bears on "inference", not on the content of the faith.
```

```
or how does unconscious faith become conscious only to become partially obscured once again and in need of proof to restore it to consciousness?
```
```
No need of proof as there is none. That consciousness comes, and quit is usual. You are quite conscious of driving when being a young driver, then most of the driving become unconscious when older ... until you get a problem with the car and are conscious again. Consciousness is related to focusing attention, notably.
```

```
It seems like the forces which are shaping faith into these different qualities of consciousness are actually the more relevant agents.
```
With comp, forces are a product of consciousness.

```
What would be the reason for or method of bringing a machine's unconscious faith into a conscious experiential mode?
```
```
The machine is conscious when she infer <>t and other G*\ G- propositions (true but non provable/believable). This confers to her an ability to evolve, to change her mind, to speed-up its computability abilities, to focuse attention, to differentiate on different consistent extensions, etc. Of course there a tuns of open problems. the advantage here is that we get physical consequences so we can test that theory of consciousness.
```
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to