On 16 Oct 2013, at 14:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:21:34 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Oct 2013, at 03:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:45:38 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.

Doesn't it seem odd that there isn't much out there that is newer than 20 years old,

That is simply wrong, and I don't see why you say that. But even if that was true, that would prove nothing.

It still seems odd. There are a lot of good programmers out there. If this is the frontier of machine intelligence, where is the interest? Not saying it proves something, but it doesn't instill much confidence that this is as fertile an area as you imply.

A revolutionary contemporary result (Gödel's incompleteness) shows that the oldest definition of knowledge (greeks, chinese, indians) can be applied to the oldest philosophy, mechanism, and that this is indeed very fertile, if only by providing an utterly transparent arithmetical interpretation of Plotinu's theology, which is the peak of the rationalist approach in that field, and you say that this instill any confidence in mechanism?

It doesn't instill confidence of your interpretation of incompleteness. For myself, and I am guessing for others, incompleteness is about the lack-of-completeness of mathematical systems rather than a hyper-completeness of arithmetic metaphysics.

The whole point here is that the machines prove their own theorem about themselves. The meta-arithmetic belongs to arithmetic. I don't say much more than what the machines already say. I just need the classical theory of knowledge (the modal logic S4), just to compare with the machine's theory (S4Grz), like I need QM to compare with the machines's statistics on computation seen from inside.

Do you say that Gödel was a supporter of the Plotinus view, or are saying that even he didn't realize the implications.

Gödel was indeed a defender of platonism, at the start. But he has been quite slow on Church thesis, and not so quick on mechanism either. That is suggested notably by his leaning toward Anselm notion of God.

The reductionist view of machines may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that its absence of rules at higher level translates into proprietary feelings, sounds, flavors, etc. Why would it?

Why not? Evidences are that a brain does that. You need to find something non-Turing emulable in the brain to provide evidences that it does not.

In theory it could, sure, but the universe that we live in seems to suggest exactly the opposite.

But we can understand what is that universe, and why it suggests this, for the machine "embedded" in that apparent universe.

It says that we must give the undead a chance to be alive - that we cannot know for sure whether a machine is not at least as worthy of our love as a newborn baby.

You cannot do that comparison. Is an newborn alien worthy of human love? Other parameters than "thinking and consciousness" are at play.

What are those parameters, and how do they fit in with mechanism?

The parameters are that love asks for some close familiarity. It fits with mechanism through long computational histories. Anyway, it is up to you to find something non mechanical. I don't defend comp, I just try to show why your methodology to criticize comp is not valid.

To fight this seduction,

You beg the question. You are the one creating an enemy here. Just from your prejudice and lack of reflexion on machines.

Sometimes an enemy creates themselves.

That is weird for an enemy about which you reject the autonomy.

we must use what is our birthright as living beings. We can be opportunistic, we can cheat, and lie, and unplug machines whenever we want, because that is what makes us superior to recorded logic. We are alive, so we get to do whatever we want to that which is not alive.

Here you are more than invalid. You are frightening.
We have compared you to racist, and what you say now reminds me of the strategy used by Nazy to "prove" that the white caucasian were superior. Lies, lies and lies.

We can lie, machines can lie, but I am not sure it is the best science, or the best politics.
With comp, God = Truth, and lies are Devil's play.

If there is a chance that a machine will be born that is like me, only billions of times more capable and more racist than I am against all forms of life, wouldn't you say that it would be worth trying to stop at all costs?

Should we prevent human birth because it might lead to people like Hitler?
You are pushing the precaution principle too far.

But thanks for warning us about the way you proceed.

This does not help for your case,

I am just the beginning. Your sun in law will make me seem like Snoopy.

Your negative idea can been used by less scrupulous people I'm afraid.



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.

Reply via email to