Another part 2 On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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're just affirming what I said. Why do you assume that the truth must > be a valid argument? > > > Truth is not a valid argument. It is not an argument to begin with. It is > a valuation of a statement. A semantics. >
It doesn't have to be a statement. Truth is a quality of congruence across sensory experiences. > > > > Some truths are experiential and aesthetic. > > > You confuse p and []p & p. > No, I deny "& p" altogether. > > > > They appear before logic and cognition. > > > At which level, in what sense of "before"? I need a theory to make sense > of such terms. > In the sense of there being a possibility of sense without logic but not logic without sense. > > > > > > > >> You just tell us that you know that, but that is not an argument. >> > > I don't say I know it, I say that it makes more sense. > > > That is a progress. It makes more sense to machine too. But "more sense" > is not an argument, especially in this context. > More sense is better than an argument. Arguments are limited to logic. > > > > > > >> 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. >> > > Yes, the dialog is the problem. You have to take off the sunglasses to see > all of the light. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > It's not a prejudice, it's an understanding. Consciousness need not be > manifested by anything, let alone machines. Consciousness is manifestation > itself. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > How do you know that a machine that can't feel (like a voice mail machine) > knows that it can't feel? > > > > I know nothing (publicly communicable). I just tell you what I assume, and > what I derive from the assumption. > > But I thought you were saying that you have an argument showing that step > 0 (comp) is invalid at the start. > Comp is invalid at the start because it loses nothing when we assume that all function can be reduced to logic and hidden logic. Computation works as a map of maps, and need have no territory that is presented aesthetically, either theoretically or empirically. The jump from map to territory is reverse engineered from the very expectations of our own awareness, making comp more likely to be a figment of circular reasoning. > I am happy you admit being less certain, on this, and my sun in law who > read your posts told me that is a bit of a relief. > I'm glad too, so that I can keep a copy of his relief and loop it for him so that he won't mind toiling in the salt mines as much. > > > > > Why would a more sophisticated machine be any different in that regard? > > > A voice mail machine does not seem to implement a universal machine > believing in some induction principles, like PA, ZF. > We don't know that the voice mail machine lacks PA and ZF induction principles, any more that I know that machines can't be zombies. Even if that were true though, I see no reason to presume that the extra functionality added through PA or ZF need result in any aesthetic phenomena flying around. 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.
