On 29 Nov 2014, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote:
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".
A worm can believe in his pain without noticing it reflexively. He can
know there is something, pain, without making any contrast. Once
Löbian (he get self-awareness, that is []p -> [][]p) he will observe
the contrast, and may be have more sophisticated interpretation of the
pain, but before being Löbian, an entity can be aware and conscious,
(and feel the pain and react to it) without philosophying on reality.
I think.
Bruno
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].
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 everything-
[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.
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.
