On 14 Oct 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All object are conscious?
No objects are conscious.
We agree on this.
Not at all. It is here and now. I have already interview such
machines.
Are there any such machines available to interview online?
I can give you the code in Lisp, and it is up to you to find a good
free lisp. But don't mind too much, AUDA is an integral description of
the interview. Today, such interviews is done by paper and pencils,
and appears in books and papers.
You better buy Boolos 1979, or 1993, but you have to study more logic
too.
It is almost applicable, but the hard part is that it is blind to
its own blindness, so that the certainty offered by mathematics
comes at a cost which mathematics has no choice but to deny
completely. Because mathematics cannot lie,
G* proves <>[]f
Even Peano Arithmetic can lie.
Mathematical theories (set of beliefs) can lie.
Only truth cannot lie, but nobody know the truth as such.
Something that is a paradox or inconsistent is not the same thing
as an intentional attempt to deceive. I'm not sure what 'G* proves
<>[]f' means but I think it will mean the same thing to anyone who
understands it, and not something different to the boss than it does
to the neighbor.
Actually it will have as much meaning as there are correct machines (a
lot), but the laws remains the same. Then adding the non-monotonical
umbrella, saving the Lôbian machines from the constant mistakes and
lies they do, provides different interpretation of []f, like
I dream,
I die,
I get mad,
I am in a cul-de-sac
I get wrong
etc.
It will depend on the intensional nuances in play.
it cannot intentionally tell the truth either, and no matter how
sophisticated and self-referential a logic it is based on, it can
never transcend its own alienation from feeling, physics, and
authenticity.
That is correct, but again, that is justifiable by all correct
sufficiently rich machines.
Not sure I understand. Are you saying that we, as rich machines,
cannot intentionally lie or tell the truth either?
No, I am saying that all correct machines can eventually justify that
if they are correct they can't express it, and if they are
consistent, it will be consistent they are wrong. So it means they can
eventually exploits the false locally. Team of universal numbers get
entangled in very subtle prisoner dilemma.
Universal machines can lie, and can crash.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
