On Monday, February 11, 2013 10:23:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote: 
> >> But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious? 
> >> 
> >> I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of   
> >> experience, some rooted in the sub-personal, some in the super- 
> >> personal, and some reflected from the impersonal ranges. From this   
> >> island of possible personal sensitivities, the influences arising   
> >> from beneath, behind, or beyond us does seem mysterious, but from   
> >> an absolute perspective, the only thing mysterious is why we should   
> >> assume that it is not fundamental. 
> > 
> > 
> > Because we want to explain it from something simpler. That's what   
> > make comp interesting, it allows at least the search (and then   
> > computer science illustrates that it works indeed). 
> > 
> > It may not have any choice but to prove it works. 
>
> Lol. 
>
>
>
> > If comp has no access to geometry, why would it have access to   
> > subjectivity? 
>
> Comp is an hypothesis, not a being. I guess you mean "if a machine has   
> no access to geometry ...". 
>

No, I mean "If the hypothesis of comp does not include a provision for how 
geometric forms can be generated or presented independently of sense, then 
why should we assume that it provides for any sensory phenomena?" It is 
clear to me that comp overlooks the necessity for sensory presentation 
entirely, and takes it for granted.

But why would a machine not having access to geometry. 


Because having access to geometry requires a visual or tactile presentation 
of shapes, not sequences of numerical transformations.
 

> On the   
> contrary, geometry is rather simple for machines, bith in the quanta   
> and qualia parts. See the theory of qualia in some of my papers. 
>

I disagree. That seems like a complete faith-based whitewash to me. My 
discussion here demonstrates that geometry is in fact separable from all 
mathematical content as a pure appreciation of shape. Further this capacity 
to generate shape is inaccessible to arithmetic or mathematics ab initio 
and requires a final sensory mode of presentation - specifically a capacity 
to participate in a context of tangible, visual presence.

Craig


>
>
>
> > In either case, there will be tautological internal consistency, but   
> > only because it comp is a closed-circuit echo chamber. 
>
> Machine intelligence is open, never close. I'm afraid that you are   
> still using the pre-Gödelian, or pre-Turingian notion of machine. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to