On 11/28/2014 8:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
"The reality of your existence" sounds like begging the question to me. "Your existence"
is an inference or model in your thoughts. I don't think "reality" or "existence" can
have any meaning without the contrasting possibility of "not reality" and "non-existence".
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
