On 11 Feb 2013, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/11/2013 10:23 AM, 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 ...".
But why would a machine not having access to geometry. 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.
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/
Dear Bruno,
Just to be clear , is the definition of a machine that you
support is: that whatever the machine is, it is capable of being
exactly represented by a recursively enumerable function?
Yes, for the digital machine, at some of their computational step. We
can represent them by a recursively enumerable set of numbers W_i, or
by a partial computable function phi_i. This follows from Church's
thesis.
But they cannot do that themselves, for themselves, without betting on
a level, and having some faith in comp, and doctors!
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
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.
