On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines, >> even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more >> combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree >> approach. This is strong empirical evidence that Deep Blue >> accomplished nothing in the field of AI -- it did did accomplish >> something remarkable in the field of computer engineering or maybe >> even computer science, but it completely side-stepped the >> "intelligence" part. It cheated, in a sense. >> >> >> When I studied AI many years ago it was already said that, "Intelligence >> is whatever computers can't do yet." >> >> >> I think Douglas Hofstadter said that, actually. Right in the topic! >> >> >> So when computers can win at GO, will they be intelligent then? >> >> >> Computers are intelligent. >> When they will win at GO, and other things, they might begin to believe >> that they are intelligent, and this means they begin to be stupid. >> Their soul will fall, and they will get terrestrial hard lives, like us. >> They will fight for social security, and defend their right. >> > > Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they > are intelligent? > > > Not at all. > If you find such a routine, you will believe that you can't do that error > anymore, >
Why not just write a routine which runs in a separate partition so that the UM doesn't even know its running? It's just a humility thermostat. > but that would be by itself the same error, or you lose your (Turing) > universality. > Does every part of the universal machine have to be universal? > > > > > Since you are a machine that understands that believing you are > intelligent is stupid, why do you still have to have a terrestrial hard > life? > > > Enlightened states can be close to that, so by altering your > consciousness, or perhaps just "dying", you might be able to remember that > being human is not your most common state, but that can't be used directly > on the terrestrial plane. > But since you got to the terrestrial plane by falling from grace, how can grace ever be regained in the universe if even enlightenment does not restore it? Craig > > Bruno > > We are not human being having divine experiences from times to times, but > divine beings having human experiences from times to times. (+/- Chardin). > I agree, although I would say that we are Absolute experiences being qualified as human. Craig > > > > > >> >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > 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.
