On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That assumes that being alive implies separation from Platonia -
that our essence is isolation rather than absolute.
True for our 3p relative "position" in histories.
Half true for our 1p (the BP part of Bp & p).
What we see in reality I think supports my version.
I can use what we see to refute a theory. Not so much to support it.
Sense has no reason to communicate since any receiver would not be
able to communicate unless it could already sense.
Like arithmetic truth, who win all war, without any army, and not
saying one word.
Sure. Arithmetic truth and Sense are almost twins, but only one of
the two can be the authentic absolute.
All right. Then Arithmetical Truth is the absolute in comp. But that's
has to be taken with a grain of salt. The quantfiied Noùs (qG*) is
incomplete even with the Arithmetical Truth as Oracle. But I will not
insts, as it is not so important, and need a lot of math.
I was saying that the machines already know that if you decide that
she is not thinking, she has no mean to prove you wrong. Comp
explains why machines will fear you.
She has no means to prove what I have decided either. I think the
whole notion of machines having fear is too silly to even call
Then Strong AI and comp are false. To compare it to science fiction is
not an argument. To say that machine's cannot fear is equivalent with
invoking actual infinities in nature, and that is considered as
fantazy by 99%9 of scientist. But I avoid such type of remark, as they
are not argument.
Again, not because I don't like technology, or wouldn't rather be a
computer myself, but because it obviously is not true of the world
we live in.
How could you say that it is obvious in a list where most people
consider it as the only plausible explanation.
Computer science excels in solving the recursive regress. There are
many fixed points which solve them.
The universality comes from some closure properties.
But there is no plausible entry for sensory experience, and no way
of bridging it to this hypothetical non-sensory existence.
For you, who admit not studying the field.
? Everything can find sense.
No, only the universal machine, notably looking in their own head
(so to speak). looking outside their head can accelerate or distract
What is an example of something that isn't a universal machine?
An adder, a multiplier, a fridge, a clock, a bridge, a house, most
computer software, etc. Among the i of the phi_i, the universal number
A universal machine is a very special sort of machine.
If there are non-machines that are gods, why would there need to be
machines also who are people?
Because the number exists and have complex relations making it so.
That's not anywhere near an answer as far as I can tell. If a number
exists, and complex relations make it so, what does that have to do
with dictating what is machine, what is non-machine, what are gods
and who are people?
The set of functions from N to N is not enumerable, the computable
functions is enumerable.
The set of subset of N is not enumerable, yet the set of enumerable
set is enumerable.
The computable is a tiny part of math. Most math learned in high
school is not computable. You need to do intuitionist mathematics to
limit yourself to the effective, or to the computable etc.
So, if you identify an entity by its set of beliefs, machine have
enumerable set of beliefs, and non machine or gods, refers to non
enumerable set of beliefs.
You need some amount of math to understand explicit example, like the
set of set theoretical sentences true in all transitive models of ZF.
I have given reference to books.
Again it seems completely unfalsifiable. Comp keeps morphing from
'UMs can emulate consciousness' to 'gods and daemons exist (who are
conscious) which are not machines.
No, it is well known mathematical theorems. The logicians study
machines and non-machines all the time. Most attributes of machines
are themselves non-machines, and some are Löbian entities.
But you can study Löbian entities without ascribing to them literal
Perhaps, we can always do that. That is why zombie are logically
Not plowing yields uncultivated land.
Thus, it is beneficial to have a goal to move to.
Not taking action to make things happen, so nothing happens. It is
better to work towards a goal.
Pretty good I think. Without pretense. It perfectly describes back
to me my own intention here. I do not try to impose an agenda, I
only show you what I am looking at. The super-personal reflections
which can work through inanimate objects without turning those
objects into literal subjects.
That's good. Distraction is the only thing that can break the spell
If you think that distraction is the only thing that can break the
spell of comp, it means that you suspect comp to be true, and admit
you dislike the idea, so let us be distracted ...
Come on Craig. You admit wishful thinking, which does not work in
science (even if it works in life and consciousness, like some machine
seems to say already, interpreting them in some way).
> Comp may mistake self referential logic for a self,
Comp does not mistake the self-referential logic for the self. There
is no reason why comp would do such a big mistake.
So you say, but I don't believe it.
Because you don't study. You are like "I know machines are dumb, so
I don't need to listen to them. "
That is a self-enforcing prejudice.
Know, I am like "I know that I can be sucked into a delusional
belief that machines are smart, so I should assume that it is even
easier for such a delusion to be present in those who work closely
I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't test the relative loss
of consciousness as I mentioned. We know that we have slept a
dreamless sleep, whether the dreamlessness is an illusion or a
retroactive fill in.
To be sure, here comp says things, but it is so hard to sum up, and so
startling, that I will not try.
But we can become amnesic, and lose memory, and context. We cannot
be unconscious, but we can believe having been unconscious, but that
is an artificial, fragile, construct of the mind.
We can lose personal consciousness and know it. I would agree that
consciousness continues at the super-personal level, and at the sub-
personal level until death.
There is only 3p-death, and no 1p-death, with comp, (notably).
Well, there is no 1p-unconsciousness, but many altered states of
consciousness, and some might reasonably be named by "1p-death", like
finding yourself in heaven, or in the purgatory, or in a Tibetan
Intermediate reality, or out of time and space or God knows which
Diophantine equations Arithmetic does emulate (cf the UD).
Craig, I have not yet seen even the shadow of an argument that machine
can't support genuine consciousness and personhood.
I think that your strategy consists in taking the solipsist first
person intuition, which is that the first person truth is obvious,
trivial, inescapable. 1-I can never recognize itself in any 3p
presentation of its body, at any level.
Then comp explains why that needs to be the case, for the first person
view of the machine.
That does not prove that comp is true, but that invalidates your
strategy. That validates also the scientific motto of not invoking
personal experiences in scientific reasoning.
"First person experiences" can *still* be part of the scientific data
though. Some generalizes too much the scientific. motto, and put the
first person data under the rug, which is unscientific.
You want the data to be the explanation, but this makes the data into
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.