On 26 Oct 2013, at 12:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > wrote:


On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:

Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they
are
intelligent?

In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with naif AI is one
that you may sympathise with: it is mostly built with symbols that are
directly imported from humans. So if there is some
"isIntelligent(self)" function that it can call, this is already too
naif, you turned the thing into a mindless parrot.


The routine need not choke the entire program, just act as an alert. It doesn't have to become a parrot, we can just put canaries in some of its
coal mines.



Real AI will be able to create its own representations, just like we
do. Artificial Neural Networks and Evolutionary Computation do this to
a degree, but are too black-boxy for my (current) taste.


To me, the issue is not with representation, but presentation.



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?

Maybe the answer is simply: because it's possible.


Not sure what you mean.

Simply that if it's possible for a machine to forget certain things
about itself and thus become human, then this is sufficient
explanation for our existence. This, of course, adopting this mailing
list's "dogma" that everything that can exist does exist.

OK. And then with computationalism, eventually we realise that we can't distinguish any "everything exist" from the many computations/ dreams which exist all in elementary arithmetic (by Church thesis!) in the same sense that the prime numbers exist, so Pythagorus is rehabilitated at the ontological level.

Comp allow a quite little "everything", and somehow represents a bigger epistemology developing from inside arithmetic, by the FPI, and the logic. The inside is in a sense bigger than the whole of mathematics.

Does those dreams cohere enough to define a precise multiverse, or a precise multi-multiverse? Open question, but the existence of an "easy" arithmetical quantization on the sigma_1 sentences (The arithmetical UD) gives hope that the winner is quantum computation. There are also evidence that a core symmetrical structure plays a role. Consciousness selection (like in the WM-duplication experience) would the reason of all symmetries breaking.

Bruno





Telmo.

Craig



Telmo.

--
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- l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
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.

Reply via email to