On 21 Apr 2013, at 18:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone
invokes
utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as
shown
us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing
plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we
understand
a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even
helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The
missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not
to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion.
Religion is what happens when people put theology out of science.
Bruno, I'm still not sure I understand your definition of theology. Is
it the same as metaphysics?
It will depend on your definition of metaphysics :)
I would define the theology of a machine, or of a possible person/soul
locally supported by a machine relatively to a (universal) machine by
the set of statements which are true about the machine (and that the
machine can justify or not, believe, or not, observe or not, hope for
or not, etc.).
This is a general definition which is agnostic on many points in
debate between Muslims, and Christians, abramanic believer and
atheists, Hinduists and buddhist, etc.
It follows Plato's definition of God, as the ultimate truth, or reason
why we are here and now, that we can search (not necessarily something
that we can find or communicate).
Then it happens that with comp, science has to bactrack to the
theology of Plato, where the physical reality is a product, or
projection, or shadow, or border of something else 'in the comp case:
arithmetical truth, and so in comp arithmetical truth plays the role
of God, or the one, or the outer god, etc.
You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon
between Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as
Neoplatonism announces a coming back to Pythagorean ontology. One of
the Enneads of Plotinus, "On Numbers" is a crazily deep analysis of
the role of numbers in theology.
Theology is just the science of "everything", which by definition
includes God and Santa Klaus. A statement saying that such or such God
does not exist is a theological statement.
It is just my agnosticism which make me use the term in the most
general sense. Then, in the frame of this or that hypothesis, we can
get such or such precisions.
There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I
think it
can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other
neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with
consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies.
Careful!
Some people don't think, but are still conscious, most plausibly. I
guess
you were joking.
I meant the opposite: people who think but are not conscious. I'm
half-joking.
OK (I was half serious) :)
You are right about Damásio. he confuses [] p and (([] p & p).
Not sure I understand. Doesn't []p => p ?
Yes, but only God knows that.
Precisely (but I will give the detail on FOAR): if B is Gödel's
provability we have that G* proves []p => p, but G does not prove it.
You can guess it as if G prove [] f => f (with f = the propositional
constant false, and "=>" the logical implication), then it would mean
that the machine proves ~[] f, and so the machine would proves its own
consistency, contradicting Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. But
G* proves it, and proves that the machine is correct: []p => p.
This is capital. It is Gödel's incompleteness which makes provability
obeying the logic of believability, and which gives sense to the
Theaetetus' definition of knowledge for machine.
I agree on intelligence, but I don't feel less conscious when I'm
sleepy. Just differently conscious. I'm a bit sleepy right now.
That's something amazing with consciousness. It exists in different
modes.
We are not trained to develop vigilance during sleep, but sleep
produces a
lot of intriguing altered state of consciousness.
Yes, it's so frustrating to not be able to come back with the full
memories.
For REM dreams and non-REM conscious episode, it is a question of a
(lot of) training, but some plants can help.
For example calea zacatechichi (legal everywhere except in Belgium),
or some coleus plant, or salvia, etc.
For teh salvia experience itself it is more difficult. The best is to
have a diary, and note the experience quickly after, but usually, you
don't recall a part of the experience. Out there, you can understand
why it is better to not recall it, as it does not make sense hereby:
it makes you inconsistent, a bit like a machine who listen to its own
G*.
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.
