On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
>
>
>
>>> At this point I'm not even talking about Science but logic and a distaste
>>> for cheerfully and strongly believing in 2 contradictory things.
>>
>>
>> I believe that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution
>> and I'm agnostic on consciousness. There is nothing contradictory
>> about this, but I can't think of any further way to make my point.
>> We'll have to disagree to disagree.
>
>
>
> You shouldn't, perhaps.
> May be it would be enough to just ask John Clark to push his logic a bit
> further.
>
> I agree that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution, but
> this assumes some mechanism, and thus Mechanism.
>
> Then the discovery of the universal machine shows that machine intelligence
> is a (logical) product of the elementary operations in arithmetic.
>
> Then machine can see their own limit, and are statistically forced to guess
> in something which can't be a machine, as arithmetical truth, for example.
>
> We don't need to know what consciousness is.
>
> If we can agree that consciousness is
> 1) undoubtable
> 2) incommunicable
> 3) invariant for digital substitution at some level.

I believe in 3) but not with 100% certainty. Isn't it possible that,
in fact, I was created just a couple of hours ago by adding the
molecules of the food I had for lunch to my body, and that before I
was someone else and we just happen to share the same (now fake)
memories. I don't think this is the case, but can I be sure?

> Then we can understand that the mind body problem becomes a body
> statistical-appearance problem in the whole of arithmetic (not just the
> computable sigma_1, but the non computable pi_1, sigma_2, pi_2, ..... up to
> arithmetical truth).
>
> This generalizes both Darwin and Everett on arithmetic.
> It shows a non negligible part of what the physical reality is the border
> of.
>
> Machines cannot not be religious.
>
> It is unavoidable, unless you deliberately program them to not look deep
> enough,  ... of course.

I like your ideas, but I still lack the technical knowledge in some of
the steps to feel confortable using them.

> And, btw, you are right with the 'artificial nets'. We will not make
> intelligent machines, we will fish in the arithmetical ocean and sometimes
> we get the chance to meet some-one, in some recognizable ways. We might
> learn deep lessons in the exploration, though.

Nice.

> 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.
>
>

-- 
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