On 27 Nov 2014, at 18:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/27/2014 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/26/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
No that is not fine. I DEFINE intelligence just as everybody else
does, the ability to find novel solutions to new problems, the
greater the variety of problems the greater the intelligence. I
DEDUCE that if intelligent beings can be non-conscious then
Darwin was wrong. My OPINION is that Darwin was not wrong.
I don't think that deduction is unqualifiedly valid. First,
evolution permits what Gould called "spandrels". I don't think
human consciousness is a spandrel, but it's possible. Second,
there may be different ways of being intelligent (as game
theorists will play NIM differently from most people) and human
consciousness necessarily accompanied human intelligence because
of the precursors (hominid intelligence) that evolution had to
start with. For example, I think human consciousness and
intelligence are both closely linked to language. Language is an
evolutionarily useful adaptation of social animals. But I see no
reason that no-social animals cannot be intelligent (e.g. ocotopi
are solitary by are the most intlligent non-vertebrates). This
implies that there can be intelligent beings without language and
therefore without anything like human-consciousness; although they
would have consciousness in Bruno's sense of "being aware".
OK. I see consciousness being very close to the "simple" belief
that there is a reality.
Meaning that one perceives things that don't respond to one's will,
things that constitute an environment that is independent of self.
This requires some sensors, some values to be pursued, and the
ability to form a model of self+environment+interactions.
Not necessarily. The reality in this case might be the reality of your
existence, or your consciousness, or God, or whatever painful or
blissful, or of (N,0,+,*). You don't need, at this stage, infer that
you have a self separated from anything. It is my current intuition
that consciousness does not need Löbianity. But Löbianity makes what
you say unavoidable, and leads to a physical, physical environment,
histories, and hopefully (assuming some conjectures about the Z and X
logics) tensor products and interaction.
This is equivalent to belief in self-consistency,
How so?
By a slight extension of Gödel's *completeness* theorem, which asserts
that a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model (in the
sense of logicians: i.e. a structure which satisfies the theorem). It
is usually proved for first-order theories, but it applies also to a
large collection of effective extensions of second-order logic (in
fact it applies to any consistent effective extensions of PA, where
effective means that the proofs are checkable. Such models model the
notion of reality (where the first occurrence of "model" is used in
the logician sense, and the second in the physicists sense).
Note that the belief in self-consistency, or in a model satisfying
your beliefs, a reality, makes you inconsistent, strictly speaking (by
Gödel's second incompleteness theorem), so we should need the ([]p &
p), or ([]p & <>t & p) variants of G/G*, to be exact. Such beliefs are
no more communicable/justifiable, nor even really expressible. It
explains why it is very hard to talk about consciousness, like about
reality/truth/God, despite it is what we are the most sure of.
Yes, that is the basic idea. I teach also to young people. Some are
intelligent, but never get competent because they does not study,
for many reason, like being more interested in girls than in math,
for example.
That's an example of wisdom over intelligence. :-)
No doubt ... :-)
Bruno
Brent
and by the second incompleteness, such a belief is not justifiable
by the entity. So I see consciousness as an elementary mystical
state, where we have vision and interpret it as showing the
existence of something without being able to prove or justify that
existence.
Yet this is what gives the meaning or the semantic of the
proposition that the machine can made.
Intelligence is more like a *disposition* making it possible to
develop some competence to act on, or change, that reality. A crow
is said intelligent because they can use tools to extract some food
from a recipient, and adapt the tools with respect to the
recipient. But a bird which cannot do that intelligent task, can
still be as much conscious than the crow. It just does not get the
right ideas, perhaps it has not the patience, or it has not enough
memories, but it believes as much as the crow in some reality
around them.
Bruno
--
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.
