On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.
You don't have to be 'illogical', you just have to transcend strict
logic...break the fourth wall...use some of that courage you were
talking about. All that I am saying is that incompleteness supports
the limits of logic, so that we cannot presume to hold sense to that
standard if my view is true.
Incompleteness does not supports the limit of logics, but the limits
of theories and machines. Then it shows how theories and machines can
access to those limitations and how they can transcend them in some
local sense, and exploit them to nuance their view on themselves.
Ideally correct and simple machines do have already a rich and complex
"theology", including a "physics". We have to listen to them, before
judging them, I think. (Here I gave the programs).
How could that conversation have sense? I put my hypotheses on the
table, but here you put a gun on the table.
Haha, yes, that's the thing, sense is tyrannical and violent. It
acts like it is following laws but it cheats and then blames
something else. At least I'm telling you it's a gun, you've
convinced yourself that your gun is just a polite hypothesis.
Confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp.
I don't pretend that my assumption are true. And sometimes you do,
forgetting that you have put ~comp in your assumption, and so that you
beg the question when using your theory to "refute" comp.
In your last post, it seemed to me you progress on it, but the
progress seem fragile here.
The choice is between logic, which is basically the most common part
of common sense, and war or violence.
It's precisely because logic is the most common part of common sense
that it cannot parse the germ of sense,
You are right, it cannot. But from this it does not follow that
machines, which are not purely logical, as they have a non trivial
arithmetical (non logical) components, cannot parse the germ of sense.
You still believe that arithmetic comes from logic?
which is absolutely unprecedented. Identity is not just uncommon,
but the opposite - unrepeatable, proprietary, anti-mechnical. There
is no choice at all. There is the illusion of logic and the reality
of having to carve some kind of genuine sanity out of this thing,
moment by moment. If we wait for logic to give us permission, we
lose the moment.
I can relate, but you don't provide an argument why machines or number
cannot relate too.
You keep thinking in term of simple logic, or simple non universal
machine, but then you miss the key notion which makes computationalism
consistent with know facts, including the experience of consciousness.
That does not prove comp, but that disprove your type of argument
against comp.
Your theory is "don't ask", but I realize also "don't argue".
Asking and arguing is great, but you can't get away from the fact
that it doesn't make sense for the one who asks and argues to be a
logical machine. It is comp which ultimately makes asking and
arguing irrelevant, but it does so like a vampire - obligating us to
invite us in..be fair to the imposter and let him take your brain.
Comp insists that you have the right to say "no" to the doctor. But
your type of philosophy would entail a segregation among people with
and without prostheses.
Tell me, can my sun-in-law vote?
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).
It is an argument against comp in my non-comp theory.
That is trivial then.
If it comes down to choosing between the certainty of life and
awareness as you know it and taking a gamble on logic and
computation, do you say yes to the farmer? If we aren't being faced
with death with a mad doctor as our only hope, would we gamble with
our lives? Would a machine say yes to the farmer?
It will not be like that. It will be more like 2060 working artificial
hippocampus, 2090 artificial limbic systems, 2110: artifical stem +
dorsal chords, 2459: artificial cortex and corpus callosum (and
artificial body). And, believe it or not, but some emotions are
treated directly by the belly, which will appears very complex to
handle. In all cases it is the right behavior of some cells, like the
glial cells, which will be hard to imitate and force us to emulate the
molecular level. Today, we cannot yet emulate the protein foldings.
People will not really have the opportunity to see a clear line when
saying "no" to the doctor for "no-comp" reason. May be saying yes for
glasses is already part of the comp slope.
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).
Nothing like that is going to happen. There aren't going to be any
copies of me.
So your theory refutes QM too? Or you invoke a collapse, or ... you
have still not explain what is the physical reality in your "primitive
sense" theory.
Sociopaths and actors refute comp. Blindsight refutes comp.
Keyboard passwords refute comp. Sports refute comp. etc.
You do have a problem with logic.
Maybe I do, because I don't see how that follows. When I list
examples, you change the subject every time.
?
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.
I never claim to know, I only see what makes sense to me. What I see
is that there are too many contradictions between what kind of world
there would be if comp were true and what kind of world is actually
experienced. There are too few compelling reasons to entertain comp
outside of the mathematics and logic from which comp is derived.
There is too much at 'steak' to let Frankensuns and corporate
persons displace anthropology and biology.
Maybe, but then we don't know what is reality, beyond our experience,
and if something is false, it remains interesting to find the (real,
communicable, not 1p) contradiction. UDA is born from such a fail
attempt. Then AUDA shows that machines are not stupid and defend
themselves already very well on that very subject. You have to do the
work to listen to them, of course.
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.
There's no difference between the presence and absence of orange
juice without some experience in which the difference can be
presented.
No doubt about this.
Bruno
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 [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.
