On 12 Feb 2015, at 14:02, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 12-Feb-2015, at 1:54 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article
is wrong.
I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility "I
don't see Christ's redemption limited to human beings".
> First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in
order to act in any way.
Yet another example of somebody in love with the English word
"religion" but not with the meaning behind it.
> But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will
never be possible
So you think that random mutation and natural selection can
produce a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why?
I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll
come to reason that even we have been produced by an intelligent
designer.
Would you conclude from this that we are machine?
Aren't we mechanical and chemical systems?
Of course, we don't know, but there are no 3p evidences for the
contrary, except the "collapse of the wave packet", or "the existence
of primary matter", which are more speculations than facts for which
we would have some evidences.
I suppose the answer would depend on the definition of machine.
Well, by machine I means anything emulable by a Turing machine. This
includes most analog machines, but excludes analog machines using
actual infinities (something which makes sense in mathematics and
theoretical physics).
I am thinking to some creationists who argue that animals are sort
of machines, and this to give evidence for "intelligent design"
My first problem with "intelligent design" is that, as an
explanation, it assumes more than it explain. Where would an
intelligent designer comes from?
Yes it does assume an unexplainable first intelligence. However, the
unexplainable is simply because of our lack of knowledge of that.
The absence of an intelligent designer is more illogical. It's just
filling the gap with nothing.
Hmm....
What if we fill the gap with elementary arithmetic?
It is part of what I will try to explain to you: but if you agree with
the axioms that I gave, plus some others (which I will give) then we
can prove the existence of all machines and all computations.
We might need God for helping us to make sense of "x + 0 = 0", "x +
s(y) = s(x + y)", but once we have those beliefs, we can believe in
all machines, without adding any assumptions.
Then, if you look at the Mandelbrot set, you can see many complex
structures, and this illustrates that very complex structures can
arise from very simple principle.
Simply beautiful!
So what about the argument that we might find a very simple
explanation of the origin of consciousness and stable appearances of
realities?
Of course we know that this is already the case in arithmetic where
all possible machine already exist together with all their possible
execution (which is why I suggest to explain this to you (hope my
last post was not to much wishes-breaking!).
I've answered that :)
Ah! OK :)
So God does not need to create machines, it is enough to create 0
and the successors and told them to add and multiply.
That would imply that God built a simple, evolutionary system. One
would marvel at such engineering!
So you might lean toward the idea that God created the numbers, and
the laws + and *, and that all the rest emerges from that (in some
precise way which can be described, but actually not been computed
exactly).
But, with this God is still a bit trivial, and is superseded by the
"arithmetical truth", and the "intelligible noùs", whose role is more
subtle than just creating the numbers.
This leads to all machines + all computations, making the
creationist argument non valid.
A remaining possible role for a God would be in a selection
process. But a selection is done automatically (by the FPI or
consciousness) ... in case the relative measure on computations,
provided by computer science, fits well with the measure inferred
from nature (given today by QM, this makes computationalism
testable). Here Quantum Mechanics illustrates indeed that
apparently, those measure fits well, as far as we can say today.
Let's not jump to conclusions. Remember the Uncertainty Principle!
I do not assume quantum mechanics, except as a way to test the comp
prediction.
Who knows and who decides?
Who asks?
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
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.
--
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.
