On 11 May 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> I think you could tell that the article was almost certainly
worthless from the title alone because it is asking the wrong
question. There is a vastly better question, Is Intelligence
Computable?
> OK, although I am not sure a question can be wrong.
In general a question is wrong if contemplating the answer produces
nothing of value, and navel gazing about consciousness produces
nothing but more navel gazing. Examining the nature of intelligence
is a very different matter, it has produced philosophical incites
and trillion dollar industries. Examining the nature of
consciousness just produces bad books and even worse internet posts.
> Then with comp [...]
I am not interested in your homemade word.
> Like the UDA shows [...]
I am not interested in the Universal Dance Association either.
>> Consciousness is a vastly simpler phenomenon than intelligence
and that's why all encompassing consciousness theories that explain
exactly how it all works are astronomically easier to find on the
internet than all encompassing intelligence theories;
> I am not sure on that. The whole AI tries theory of intelligence
and intelligence grow.
Yes but the ideas about Artificial Intelligence that we have today
took decades of hard work to find by lots of brilliant people , but
any jackass can post a consciousness theory on the internet that
works just as well (or badly) as any other consciousness theory.
Feynman said that science was imagination in a straightjacket, the
straightjacket being consistency with what we already know and the
requirement that our imaginings explain something or do something
that previously we could not; it's hard as hell to do all that but
it's worth the effort. With consciousness theories there is no
straightjacket, it's just imagination, and that's why it's so easy
and so worthless.
> Comp *is* a theory of consciousness
OK, but there are 6.02 * 10^23 other consciousness theories, and
they all bore me.
> and intelligence too
Now that is very different! If true then tell me how "comp" says
intelligence works in enough detail that I can try it out on my
computer. If my computer starts behaving intelligently then I'll
know that "comp" is a good theory of intelligence, if not then yet
another intelligence theory bites the dust.
> and is falsifiable, because it says something about the possible/
necessary physical reality.
I would be enormously more impressed if "comp" said something about
how pattern recognition in general and image recognition in
particular worked.
> Evolution did not produce consciousness, nor intelligence [...]
Evolution produced brain
Evolution produces nouns, and all nouns have adjectives that can be
associated with them, adjectives like Bruno Marchal or John K Clark.
>> Evolution can't see consciousness. But Evolution can see
intelligence.
> Then comp ascribes a role to consciousness, which is a speed-up
factor.
If true and consciousness effects behavior then that explains why
Evolution bothered to create it. It would also mean that it would be
EASIER to make a conscious AI than a non-conscious AI; so just like
human beings if a machine is smart it's probably conscious too.
Yes, and the point is that universal numbers are already smart and
conscious. The point is that the löbian numbers are self-conscious,
and initiate consciousness differentiation on the many-computations.
We get the many-"worlds" from the other side (the reality of the
consistent relative number relations).
Of course consciousness is "easy", that is why you could understand
that we can already ask the machine about that.
Just telling me that you will not listen to the machine because you
are not interested in consciousness is only a bit sad for the people
interested in that consciousness problem.
I hope you are not confusing "is easy", with "we have solved it".
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
