On 19 Jan 2015, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
How would you define "intelligence" for this thing?
Jupiter Brain / Omega Point / Result of post-singularity
intelligence explosion / Platonic mind with access infinite
computing resources / Dyson's sphere powered computer, take your
pick. It's capable enough to run a planet-wide simulation down to
whatever necessary detail it desires, and be able to infer any
being's thoughts on the planet by analyzing its brain activity.
Beyond that I'm not sure how to quantify or define its intelligence.
I think of intelligence as the ability to observe and infer and
learn. Of course the traditional God was not only the creator of
everything He was also a person who knew everything and so could
not learn anything.
Maybe this one is only a mere demi-god then. You can only say it
knows everything about its simulation.
1. Would you consider such a demi-god a theistic god for the
entities within its simulation?
Not necessarily. One of the defining characteristics of the theist
God is that He cares about human behavior (especially when they're
nude).
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it were
demonstrated that our universe was created and is maintained by a
theistic God simulating the whole universe, you would not call it a
theistic God unless it happened to care about your behavior when
you're nude? You will go to any stretch to avoid entertaining the
possibility that atheism might be wrong.
2. Can you rule out that some demi-god somewhere isn't simulating
this planet?
No.
I take back my last sentence.
3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
UDA/arithmetical realism?
Probably not. But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical
realism. Truth =/= existence.
You're right it doesn't. But the truth of the statement "There
exists a program X that computes Y" is proof of the existence of
program X which computes Y.
Voilà.
Of course, a materialist will say, Oh but I believe in some subtancial
matter, and I define "exists" by exists when implemented trhough that
subtancial matter.
That's OK, but leads to difficulties when assuming computationalism,
and is not really satisfying when we try to understand where matter
comes from (without assuming matter at the start).
Bruno
Jason
Brent
--
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.
--
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.
