On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote: 
>
> > On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody   
> >>>> has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the   
> >>>> answer is expected to do. 
> >>> 
> >>> I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the   
> >>> solution.  When we can build AI robots that exhibit (including   
> >>> reporting) intelligent and emotional responses similar to humans   
> >>> and we can map between their AI and the function of brains in a   
> >>> way that allows us to reliably adjust the behavior of AI robots   
> >>> and/or humans - then we will have "solved" the problem, in the   
> >>> practical sense that no one will care about it in general terms   
> >>> but will discuss it in technical terms the way biologists discuss   
> >>> protein production and messenger RNA and DNA error correction but   
> >>> no longer discuss "what is life?". 
> >> 
> >> No this will not work. We must test the physical consequence of the   
> >> belief that the brain can be truncated at a finite level. 
> > 
> > Sure. Not only will we build AI robots, but we will also use the   
> > understanding we develop to modify brains and cure some mental   
> > illness; which will entail learning the proper level of   
> > substitution.  But it will all be inferred from behavior and reports   
> > and mapping between AI and brain processes. 
>
> In part, as the pioneer of technological (local) immortality will take   
> the first approximation. My point is more concrete, comp leads to   
> testable observation in the physical world, indeed the laws of physics. 
>
> Comp gives the realm where the laws of physics evolves, a sort of many   
> interfering 'matrix' which exists by the law of + and *. It is   
> testable, with the classical theory of knowledge (not Theatetus,   
> except that Theaetetus gives it when apply to sigma_1 complete   
> provability). 
>
>
But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes physics 
follow the laws? What would be the point of physics if this realm of Comp 
already exists?

Craig
 

>
> > 
> > Brent 
> > "Perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, 
> > but when there is no longer anything to take away" 
> >      --- A de Saint-Exupery 
>
> I prefer this quote than the preceding one. Looks like arithmetic is   
> perfect, in that sense. All universal numbers! 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. 
>
> > 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.


Reply via email to