On 23 Mar 2014, at 19:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:49:48 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think logic can study reality, only truncated maps of maps
of reality.
Whatever is reality, it might not depend on what you think it is,
or is not.
Of course, but it might not depend on logic or computation either.
It depends on the theory we assume.
You don't see the double standard there?
You, again, talk like if our point was symmetrical. It is not.
I do not say that non-comp is wrong.
You *do* say that comp is wrong.
You can assume non-comp, and make your theory and prediction.
You might even use your theory to find a valid argument against comp,
but it has not to rely on the non-comp assumption, or you beg the
question.
Note that the Löb formula (the main axiom of G, in which all points of
view are defined in arithmetic, or in arithmetical terms) is a form of
"begging the question", and might be seen as a form of placebo, which
makes my sympathy for your "consciousness has to beg the question".
But of course, that rings like a confirmation of comp. Note that this
has to be taken with some grain of salt, but it is clear that the Löb
theorem shows that machines can prove by a curious technic of begging
the question. Indeed if PA proves []p -> p, for some proposition p,
then PA will always prove p. PA obeys to the Löb rule:
([]p -> p)
p
([]p -> p)
p
PA knows that, as PA can prove []([]p -> p) -> []p. (Löb's formula,
the main axiom of G and G*).
I do. That's why I insist that comp asks for a non trivial leap of
faith, and we are warned that comp might be refuted. Without the
empirical evidences for the quantum and MWI, I am not sure I would
dare to defend the study of comp. It *is* socking and counter-
intuitive.
It's not shocking at all to me. For me it's old news.
Not to me, and I don't take anything for granted. I assume comp,
and this includes elementary arithmetic, enough to explain
Church's thesis.
I don't take arithmetic for granted.
Then you have no tools to assert non-comp.
Why not? I assert sense. Computation need not even exist in
theory. Computation arises intentionally as an organizational
feature - just as it does on Earth: to keep track of things and
events.
Question begging.
If an explanation falls out of the hypothesis, why is it question
begging?
Because it does not justify at all why comp has to be wrong. It
justifies only that comp might be wrong, and is unbelievable, but
this is already derivable from comp.
The fact that there may be no way to justify that comp has to be
wrong does not mean that comp is in fact not wrong.
But we have never disagree on that.
The fact that it is unbelievable is not as persuasive as the
numerous specific examples where our expectations from comp do not
match,
You never mention one without either begging the question, or
confusing some points of view.
and indeed are counter-factual.
What is shocking and counter-intuitive is that the nature of
consciousness is such that there is a very good reason why
consciousness is forever incompatible with empirical evidence.
Again, you talk like Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism (and a
solipsist!), also a great guy in topology. Well, the easiest way
to attribute a person to a machine (theaetetus) provides S4Grz,
(the logic of []p & p) which talks like Brouwer too, and identify
somehow truth and knowledge, and makes consciousness out of any 3p
description.
Truth and knowledge, []p & p...these things are meaningless to me.
All I care about is what cares. Truth and knowledge care for
nothing.
I was beginning to suspect this. But then why still argue?
Because consciousness is what cares.
Truth or knowledge of consciousness only can make sense of this.
Consciousness includes knowledge of itself by definition.
No, that self-consciousness.
That would be knowledge of the self. You don't need to know that you
are 'you' to know that there is an experience 'here'.
Yes. That is why there is awareness/consciousness and self-awareness/
self-consciousness.
In the first both the 1-I and 3-I are implicit, and in the second, it
is explicit, the machine "sees" it.
Currently, I think consciousness appears at the Sigma_1 complete, or
Turing universal, level. Self-consciousness appears at the Löbian level.
I would say.
It is the difference between RA and PA.
The main difference is that although each time RA proves p, RA will
soon or later proves []p, yet RA will fail to notice or justify that
fact,, RA will not prove
[]p -> [][]p, neither for its 1p I, nor for its 3p I. RA has not the
cognitive ability to introspect that much. RA is sigma_1 complete,
that is Turing universal, but she does not know it. PA knows it, like
ZF, and they can see all the messy consequence of its Turing
universality.
And you are right on this, again. It *is* a theorem of comp.
I hope you try to follow the modal thread, as it will help you to
put sense on that last sentence. But there is some amount of work
to do, and you have to be willing to change your mode of arguing,
going from your []p & p to the usual "scientific and 3p" []p.
I think that it's you who should try paddling away from the
shallow waters of modal logic and truth and surf the big waves of
sense.
Why do you judge something shallow, and at the same time confess
not studying this. It makes you look rather foolish, and wipe o
I'm not trying to be an expert in sailing to China from Italy. I'm
trying to show whoever is interested that there is another
continent or two in the way.
The other continents has been found, and you don't need to invoke
sense other than at the metalevel. If not, what you do is the
persisting hulman error to invoke God in science. It cannot work.It
makes science into pseudo-religion.
It has nothing to do with God or religion for me.
I said that your use of sense is like the use of god, in the gap-god
type of explanation. You use "sense" to forbid the study of some
theory. You justify "don't ask" by invoking a private feature.
I don't forbid the study of anything. I applaud AI research,
including Strong AI Singularity variety. I'm not one of those who
sees interviews with Kurzweil or Moravec (who I met once, btw), and
says 'Deluded fools'. To the contrary, I think it's a little sad
maybe that they will probably not see their ideas fulfilled, but as
long as they are not demanding people to say Yes to the doctor, I
have no problem.
Excellent.
A computationalist demanding to other people to say Yes to the doctor
is provably (by all Löbian numbers) inconsistent and even insane, and
even blasphemous.
But you agree that with your theory, they will just be doll or zombie,
losing all the "aesthetics", in case their wish is fulfilled, right?
My problem is if we want to discover the deep truth about awareness,
we need the most perfect form of what I call a philosophical vacuum
to begin with. We cannot assume arithmetic or mind or information.
We can't assume anything except for the presence of experience and
participation in it. If we fail to begin from the absolute
beginning, then we wind up reifying that which as already been
reified. I am only doing to mechanism what mechanism does to
materialism. The private feature that I am invoking is privacy itself.
But, Craig, I do agree with this. But it is almost like saying to
people, that to study seriously consciousness, they have to have to be
conscious, and then introspect, etc.
That's true, and we are our only cobaye, and obviously the experience
of altered consciousness state gives some perspective on the subject
of consciousness.
But, again, this does not entail that universal machine have not also
a rich connection to "sense" with rich Aesthetic, when God lost Itself
in the Noùs or something.
You keep accusing me to eliminate the sense, but you do eliminate the
machine sense that the math suggests when using the most standard
definition in philosophy/epistemology.
It's about grounding physics and mathematics in aesthetic sense.
This does help explain ideas of God and religion, but that is
completely optional. I find your fear and prejudice toward this
possibility interesting.
I am open to the possibility, so you are wrong.
How do you know you are open to it?
Because I doubt that comp is true, despite all evidence. Then I doubt
comp+Theaetetus is true, but I made it easily testable.
But I wait for evidences or justification,
There is no less evidence or justification for what I propose than
there is for comp.
Comp is understood by 99% of the humans since they use tools. It is
unfortunately confused with materialism, which is a doctrine very
close, but different once we decide to listen to the observer, as
physicists do more and more from Galilee, to Einstein, to Everett.
Non-comp is the almost unintelligible opponent. It is a sort of appeal
to something Alien from anything we can infer from nature. the wave
collapse might have been an exception, but despite 70 years of hard
work, the collapse still doesn't make sense, and with comp, that weird
aspect of nature is almost trivial, but bears on some set of
arithmetical sentences.
And, then you keep talking like if I was defending comp, or arguing
for its truth. I don't. I just say that IF its true, then we get a
multi-dream, with an arithmetical quantization, and that the whole
structure fits with what the rationalist mystic describes in the west
and the east.
but the way you proceed confirms it is only a prejudice, which
unfortunately makes you not studying the domain. So you are just
stucking yourself in some (negative) personal opinion. That is
hardly convincing. Sorry.
You introduce many relevant differences and nuances, but apply them
only to humans,
I don't apply anything at all to humans. I only work with qualities
of sense.
Then why keeping that carbon/silicon differences, what not all sigma_1
complete entities, from the arithmetical to the analytical?
and forget them despite I try to explain that machines already do
these distinctions. But you don't listen to them invoking that you
have already made your opinion, so ... well, you build your own
mental prison.
Machines do not distinguish aesthetic qualities, nor do they care
about doing so.
A sound stronger universal machine will never say to a weaker
universal machine "you will never succeed in this or that". In many
case the effect is devastating, as the placebo is here a nocebo
effect, and the begging of intelligence will lead to self-distrust and
even some spiraling self-confirming stupidity snow-ball.
The 3p machines certainly not, you are right, but 3p machines supports
1p soul too, and we can already chat with them.
The real singularity point is done, it is the discovery of the
universal machine, or the Löbian one. She is born sound, intelligent
or consistent, and correct. In a sense, she can only become more
"stupid".
The singularity most talk about is not when machines will be as much
intelligent than us, it will be when machines will be as much stupid
as us, I'm afraid.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
Craig
...
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
