On 22 Mar 2015, at 00:56, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Competence and intelligence are different things
If something made of protoplasm does it then it's intelligent, but
if something made of silicon and does the exact same thing then it's
only competent;
Only a non computationalist would say that.
I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of
machine intelligence would make that argument.
Anyone believing that computationalism is wrong. O that its
consequences, are wrong.
Materialist may be. Or any religious believer who believes that his
religion does not apply on machines.
> Intelligence is the ground state of being that allows any living
thing access to an experience of time and place.
Contemplating your navel in other words.
Well, it depends what you mean by contemplating your navel.
Any way, if by this you mean "looking inward", or "developing a
discourse about oneself", even at first in the third person sense,
then computer science shows that there are many interesting things
there, to say the least.
John, I recall you that I suggest that the machine PA is already
intelligent. I hope you were not alluding to me above.
AUDA, the machine interview(*), shows, in some admittedly trivial and
naive sense, that PA has no problem with step 3. Of course, to prove
this, is slightly more involved than step 3, but it is still trivial,
for anyone grasping some textbook in theoretical computer science.
In the machine's interview, or in the formalization of the reasoning,
the pronouns, the 3p self-references are handled by the second fixed
point theorem (see Smullyan "How to mock a mocking bird), and/or by
the diagonalization lemma (which is the arithmetical predicative
version). Solovay sums up all the diagonalizations needed in his
arithmetical completeness theorem of the modal logic G and G*.
The first person notions are handled by applying variants of
Theaetetus' definition of knowledge, made possible and necessary for
the machine by the incompleteness phenomena.
Bruno
(*) The machine's interview is sum up in the part 2 of the paper:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
Don't hesitate to reread the first three steps of UDA, as you just
told us that you have forgotten them. They are in the first part of
that paper.
> Competence is getting stuff done.
So from my point of view the only important thing is if computers
are competent or not, and it doesn't matter if they're intelligent
or conscious because if one of the things they decide to get done is
take over the world then I'm dead meat. I don't know how thinks look
from your point of view because I have no way of knowing if you or
any of my fellow human beings is competent or intelligent, much less
know if they are conscious.
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.
