On 3/7/2013 11:53 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
That's interesting to me too. Actually I'm surprised you are not more embracing of Bruno's ideas because they give life to the idea of conscious software.
Hi,

Oh, I do firmly believe that our minds are "conscious software"! I am trying to figure out why are they need this particular kind of hardware, aka brain. I think that it is not an accident, i.e. that evolution shaped the brain toward an end, of sorts. ) No, there is no intelligent design going on other than what can fit into laws, but Pratt makes a good case that Nature reasons both forward and backward in time... http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ortho.pdf , http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/seqconc.pdf


You seem to me to be reluctant to give up materialism, but philosophically speaking I think materialism dooms AI.

No. I give up neither materialism nor immaterialism. I give up non-neutral monism.


On the more theoretical side of things, I will say this. It occurred to me the other day that the trace of the UD (aka UD*) is a fractal,

Actually it is a Multifractal. See http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/plugins/fraclac/FLHelp/Multifractals.htm and http://www.itsec.gov.cn/docs/20090507164047604667.pdf

in that many of the programs executed by the UD are themselves universal dovetailers.

    Ad infinitum!

It is reminiscent of the Mandelbrot set, in that there are many such paths (an infinite number) that replicate the UD but alter it in some small way.

But think about this further, is there actually any alteration of the UD possible? It spans all possible computations, so no. It never changes at all.

Every program generated by the UD in fact is replicated an infinite number of times, and also altered slightly an infinite number of times.

    Right.

I wonder if there are clues to the measure problem hidden in the fractal characteristics of the UD*. But that's wild-ass speculation. I don't have the mathematical chops to take that idea any further.

I suspect that it has a pattern (mostly a random pattern) for/at every possible measure. I am not a mathematician, sadly...



On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 3/7/2013 11:37 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
    Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think
    our immediate failure to solve that problem dooms the idea that a
    cat's experience of the world is explainable in terms of
    mechanism. Conversely, even if we did solve it, there would still
    be doubts. For the time being, comp remains for me the most
    fruitful assumption about reality, such as it is. It assumes so
    little and opens up such incredible vistas.

    Terren


    Hi,

        I agree. I think that it becomes more open to applications
    once it is aligned with, say, David Chalmers and Ben Goertzel's
    ideas. I am interested in applications
    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnd-hdmgfk>. ;-)



    On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        On 3/7/2013 10:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
        I'm game. Which puzzle are we figuring out?

            A solution to Bruno's 'arithmetic body problem'.




--
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.


Reply via email to