On 18 Mar 2015, at 17:57, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, consciousness - evolutionary advantage or spandrell?
> Both. I would say.
Then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for
intelligence.
It can give an idea that some entity is conscious, if long enough, and
with entity similar to you.
It can not work for intelligence.
But then you don't believe the Turing Test even works for
intelligence because you believe that the ability to do intelligent
things has nothing to do with being intelligent, an idea so
breathtakingly silly nobody would dream of uttering it unless they
were driven to do so by their fear of intelligent machines. I guess
"competent machines" sounds less threatening to you.
?
I was consider as being crackpot *because* I defended the idea that
machine could be intelligent, and could develop competence. 40 years
ago.
How can you say that ? Have you ever read anything I wrote? I defend
machine intelligence since always.
Computationalism entails (in the 1p way only, though) the STRONG AI
thesis. If I am a machine, then there is at least one machine
conscious. Of course, this kind of talk should be made precise, as it
is not the machine (body, description) which thinks, but the person
incarnated/emulated by that machine, and all machines enough similar
in close computational histories.
The problem we must solve is to justify the physical laws by the right
relative measure on all histories, where an history is described by
(sigma_1) arithmetical relations.
Theoretical computer science + computationalism make possible to
translate the mind-body problem into a problem in mathematical logic
and theoretical physics.
Your stopping at step 3 is just playing words. Everything I say and
use in the reasoning does not require more than what has been put in
the hat.
My work is very modest. It looks radical only for those who take time
to understand that the notion of primitive physical universe might not
need to be taken for granted. Science is agnostic on this. And with
computationalism, if physics want incarnate the mind, it has to sum up
rightly on the sigma_1 sentences. Its observable must respect the self-
referential correctness of the observers. So it looks like the machine
themselves (by the theorems of many logicians, from Post, Turing,
Gödel, Kleene, Boolos, Goldblatt, Solovay, Visser).
Your way of talking is problematical because it insinuate that there
is something wrong, and when asked, you just play with words,
attributes intent, and well, never get to the point, and never
thinking why he did not convince anyone.
From the scientist point of view, you are sometimes assuming that
there is a primitive physical universe, and that we have to be dumb to
propose a theory not assuming it. That's OK, as I defend no thesis,
but I did show that with computationalism, we have a model, at the
least, making sense of a reality without primary physical reality, as
the reality can be taken the arithmetical sigma_1 truth, and it
contains all possible accessible machine dreams, with a complex
measure. This follows easily from computationalism, and, let us say
Epstein-Carnielli, or Boolos and Jeffrey books proofs of that antic
results that arithmetical sigma_1 completeness is equivalent with
Turing Universality.
Your stopping at step three is unreasonable, because for some reason,
you don't accept the strategy to interview all the first person
experiences. You seem always to stop the thought experiment in the
middle, by a refusal of carefully distinguishing the first person
discourses (all individual diaries), with the correct inferences and
the refuted one. Like Kim said, it is a childplay to get the white
noise expectation with the iterated protocol. In the front of the UD,
or the sigma_1 arithmetical reality, the calculus is more complex, and
I approach it by, to be short, interviewing a Löbian machine, like PA,
on this.
I am not that clever, but I put myself on the shoulder of giants, like
Post, Turing, Boolos, Goldblatt, Solovay, Visser, not to mention
Gödel, Grzegorczyk, and many others.
I explain that PA has already an incredible theology (with the term
used by Plato, not Aristotle) and you were one post away talking like
I disbelieve in machine intelligence?
Have you really read nothing?
It really looks like.
Bruno
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.
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.
