On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure
sense making and sense experience.
It makes the minimal sense *you* need to understand what we talk
about. That sense has already been studied and has itself some
mathematical representation.
Then, once you have the numbers, and the laws of + and *, you can
prove the existence of the universal numbers and their
computations. The universal numbers are the sense discovering
machine.
It doesn't matter how minimal the sense is by our standards. In
that frame of reference, before we exist, it is much sense as there
could ever be. If there is sense to make + and *, then numbers can
only act as conduit to shape that sense, not to create it. You're
interested in understanding numbers, but I'm only interested in
understanding the sense that makes everything (including, but not
limited to numbers).
You ignore the discovery that numbers can understand and make sense
of many things, with reasonable and understandable definitions
(with some work).
Just as we depend our eyes to make sense of our retinal cells
sense, so to do numbers act as lenses and filters to capture sense
for us. That does not mean that what sense is made through numbers
belong to numbers.
Of course. Comp might be false. ~comp, we agree on this since the
start. But it does not add anything to your []~comp. You persist to
confuse ~[]comp and []~comp.
I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue
this means you say []~comp is true.
Or that you confuse, like you did already "truth" and knowledge, but
in that case you keep saying that you know []~comp, yet your argument
above was only for ~[]comp, on which I already agree, as it is a
consequence of comp.
just because it is outside of logic. When you arbitrarily begin from
the 3p perspective, you can only see the flatland version of 1p
intuition. You would have to consider the possibility that numbers
can come from this kind of intuition and not the other way around.
If you put your fingers in your ears, and only listen to formalism,
then you can only hear what formalism has to say about intuition,
which is... not much.
Why?
All that can still make sense in the theory according to which
sense is a gift by Santa Klaus.
And this is not an argument against your theory, nor against the
existence of Santa Klaus.
Concerning your theory, I find it uninteresting because it abandons
my entire field of inquiry: making sense of sense.
I don't think abandoned as much as frees it from trying to do the
impossible. I see mathematics as being even more useful when we
know that it is safe from gaining autonomous intent.
Comp implies that Arithmetic is not free of autonomous intent,
trivially. But computer science provides many realities capable of
justifying or defining autonomous intent.
I was talking about the theory of comp being over-extended to try
to explain qualia and awareness.
It helps to formulate the problems, and provides way to test
indirect predictions.
But again you are pursuing the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp.
There's no confusion. If comp cannot justify actual qualia, but
~comp can, then we should give ~comp the benefit of the doubt.
comp implies that ~comp has the benefits of the doubt. I told you
this many times.
As I just repeated above, this does not refute comp.
What does it mean to give it the benefit of the doubt but then deny
it?
You are the only one who deny a theory here.
I never said that comp is true, or that comp is false. I say only that
comp leads to a Plato/aristotle reversal, to be short.
But *you* say that comp is false, and that is why we ask you an
argument. The argument has to be understandable, and not of the type
"let us abandon logic and ...", which is like "God told me ...", and
has zero argumentative value.
Comp is Gödelian. It behaves like "consistency" (~[]f, <>t), which
entails the consistency of its negation: <>t -> <>[]f.
Not sure what you mean. Maybe if you wrote it out without symbols.
If I am consistent then it is consistent that I am not consistent.
(I = the 3p notion of self).
But in logic and computer science, we do have theories relating
formula/theories/machine and some mathematical notion senses
(models, interpretation, valuation) usually infinite or transfinite.
But I have never said that you are wrong with your theory. Only
that the use of your theory to refute computationalism is not valid.
Not valid by what epistemology though?
Yes, that is your problem. You seem unaware of the most simple
universal standard, which are basically either classical logic, or
another logic, but then made explicit.
It's not that I'm not aware, it's that I think it doesn't work for
consciousness unless you beg the question by assuming that
consciousness comes from logic.
Then you become non sensical, at least for the others. Somehow you
confess you have to abandon logic to make my sun in law into a
zombie.
You make my point.
You make my point also. Your view assumes that we must judge
consciousness by the standard of logic,
I never said that, on the contrary.
What part of your view allows consciousness to be addressed outside
of its logical entailments?
The decision to say "yes" to the doctor.
The machine's decision to add a self-consistency axiom and become
another machine.
The direct introspection of the machine, when she feels what is out of
any possible justification.
That is formalized by the the annuli Z* \ Z, X* \ X, etc.
Yes, mathematical logic provides tools to meta-formalizes some non
formalizable, by the machine, predicate which are still applying on
the machine.
even though we know from the start that our access to logic depends
on consciousness. Your sun in law is animated doll, and you must
amputate my circle of sense to the digital square in order to make
him seem human.
On the contrary. I justify why the machine has no "amputation of
sense" to do.
But you justify it by defining sense in an amputated way so that it
does nothing but serve math.
You do the amputation. For you, in 1985, when my sun in law got the
digital brain, you stop to attribute any sense to his talk. You are
the one making it into a doll. He made a wonderful carrier (in nuclear
physics), makes my daughter happy, have two children, but *you* tell
me that he is dead.
You don't have the monopoly on a word like sense. And you should not
confuse a theory of sense with sense, and a simple theory of sense if
given by machine's intensional self-references, and so your move to
evacuate it by abandoning logic just to "kill" my sun-in-law confirms
my point.
You need to abandon logic to be argue that some talk by some entities
does not make sense.
It begs the question if you use the logic that gives rise to comp
to refute a conjecture that explicitly questions logic as primordial.
If you refute comp with a non standard logic, you have to make it
explicit.
I do make it explicit. In the matter of 1p awareness, I refute all
possible logic with the deeper reality of sense.
Good 1p intuition, but the machine already knows that, and they can
know that this cannot been used to justify that they are
(necessarily unknown for them) machines/numbers.
Isn't that an argument from authority, where the authority is how
you interpret hypothetical machines states of mind? Saying that
machines know that my view is wrong does not help. I can say that
kangaroos know that your view is wrong.
Machines derives your view for their 1p. This is justified in detail.
You continue to push this bizarre arguments. You are the brown egg
saying 'it makes sense that eggs are white by default'.
I agree that argument is a bit diabolical. But comp explains why comp
is not believable, and even why comp is false from the 1p view.
That is why I insist that saying "yes" to the doctor involves some
faith, and courage, and that comp has theological consequences, that
we can study on PA, which in comp is an Escherichia Coli for the study
of soul and body.
But you will have to motivate the use of that logic,
Why would I have to motivate the use of sense if I don't have to
motivate the use of standard logic? All I have to do is stop
presuming that math can make color and then begin to understand why.
But comp explains why.
Then show me a new color. You can't do it. If I said 'show me how
to solve Rubik's cube', you could.
Machines can already explain why. Anyway, what you say does not
distinguish silicon and organic bodies on the consciousness matter.
It's not the composition of the matter that is the problem, its what
the composition represents. Authenticity is more fundamental than
matter or information.
Why should my sun-in-law be no more authentic after its prosthetic
operation?
I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from inside escapes somehow
the mathematics accessible to the machine.
No need to keep explaining, I understood from the beginning. I'm
suggesting that the 'somehow' is due to the machine actually being
a reduced set of qualia. Arithmetic is a machine run by sense.
No problem with such suggestion, but a suggestion is not a refutation.
A refutation may not be possible because comp is too autistic. It
refuses to accept any arguments that are not defined in purely
logical terms. Insensitivity defines sensitivity in a trivial way.
False. It accepts any valid argument. You did not present one. You
just tell us that you know that, but that is not an argument.
Nor do you present a theory, in the usual informal sense used by
scientists, which you criticize as having inadequate tools, but then
you put yourself out of the dialog.
and it seems that changing the logic to refute comp, is like trying
to rotate the solar system to be in front of your computer (it is
simpler to rotate yourself).
I'm not changing the logic, I'm denying that it is relevant.
This is worst than "don't ask". It is: "let us be irrational".
Let us be rational in understanding the trans-rational, but do not
limit ourselves to the rationality of strict logic.
= "give me some amount of illogicalness so that I can keep up my
prejudice against machine";
"Let me disallow all but strictly logical terms so I can keep up my
prejudice against consciousness".
UDA is informal, and I hope valid. AUDA uses mathematical logic and
theoretical computer science, which uses are of course invited when
you assume computationalism.
It seems again like if you do have a prejudice against my sun in law,
and other possible machines, ability to manifest personal consciousness.
Consciousness is what we are looking for and consciousness is
required before logic.
Like the far away galaxies are required before the telescope, but
that does not make the telescope irrelevant to detect the galaxies.
No, but the galaxies are not defined by what a telescope detects.
An array of telescopes cannot create a galaxy.
Nor can logic create consciousness, but still be useful to reason
about consciousness. You make my point, again.
It be useful to reason about consciousness to a point, but it
doesn't go all the way,
Hmm... OK. Incompleteness valid this.
and it doesn't know why it can't go all the way. Surely
incompleteness validates this.
No. the machine can be aware of its own incompleteness and understand
why it doesn't go all the way, but also why this makes the possible
"outside" productive and very rich.
Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do
use it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide
opportunistically to not apply it to "refute" comp.
Comp can't be refuted logically.
Sorry, but the whole point is that it might be. It can be refuted
logically, arithmetically, and empirically.
It's a mirage. It seems like it could be refuted, but the built in
bias of logic overlooks the stacked deck. Just as emotions and ego
have their biases that warp our thinking, so too does logical
thinking have an agenda which undersignifies its competition.
You are so wrong here that I have to pause. You talk in a way which
empties the dialog of any sense. You tell me in advance you need to be
illogical to refute my agnosticism in the matter.
How could that conversation have sense? I put my hypotheses on the
table, but here you put a gun on the table.
The choice is between logic, which is basically the most common part
of common sense, and war or violence.
Your theory is "don't ask", but I realize also "don't argue".
That might be correct, and provable in your non-comp theory, but that
is not an argument against comp.
(And this is no more an argument in favor of comp of course).
Randomness comes up in comp predictions?
Yes. At step seven, as the UD will notably dovetail on all normal
differentiation, on a continuum. The iterated WM self-duplication
is a part of UD*.
What becomes random, and why?
Are you OK with step 3 of the UDA?
I don't think so. Teleportation?
No, the FPI. The fact that you cannot predict, in your personal diary,
what you will write tomorrow, when you will be copied and sent at two
different places simultaneously (or not).
Sociopaths and actors refute comp. Blindsight refutes comp. Keyboard
passwords refute comp. Sports refute comp. etc.
You do have a problem with logic.
I am just saying that you have not prove that comp is false. Telling
me that I have not proved comp will not do the work, as comp implies
that no such proof can ever exist.
It's not a matter of proof, because proof has nothing to do with
consciousness. It is a matter of what makes more sense overall.
That is wishful thinking. It is your right. I have no problem with non-
comp, but I do have problem with people using any theory pretending to
refute something, and actually unable to do it.
There is no problem working in different incompatible theories. But
you can't use that incompatibility to pretend knowing that the other
theory is false.
Well said, but that's 1p.
What suggests that there can be any other kind of absence?
3p absence, like a fridge without orange juice.
The fridge doesn't know there is no orange juice.
And this does not entail the presence of orange juice, indeed.
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 [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.
