On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
