On 09 Jun 2015, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist
hypothesis (also known as the strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is "comp" for a materialist: but
that position is proved to be nonsense.
Comp is just "I am a digitalizable machine".
String AI is the thesis that machine can think (be conscious). It
does not logically entail comp. Machine can think, but does not
need to be the only thinking entities. Gods and goddesses might
be able to think too.
But in saying "I am a digitalizable machine" you implicitly assume
that machine exists in the environment that you exist in.
That is not a problem. In arithmetic I will exist in infinities of
environments, played by UMs (with and without oracles). Such
existence are relative, and phenomenological.
It is this environment and your potential interaction with it that
provides meaning to the "digital thoughts" of the machine.
I can agree with this. What does it change in the reasoning?
It undermines the MGA because it shows that whether a physical
process instantiates a computation is a wholistic question, one
whose answer is relative to the environment and interaction with
that environment. This means that isolating the movie graph and
then showing that it is absurd to regard it as a computation is not
a legitimate move.
The boolean graph contained the part of the simulation of the
environment. Then the movie graph does not emulate a computation, and
that is what lead to the absurdity.
Or you mean that the environment needs primitive matter, but then the
boolean graph already does not the relevant computation.
Bruno
Brent
The point is that your generalized brain, as long as it is digital,
cannot singularize your soul. If you don't add non Turing emulable
magic in matter, the argument shows that matter has to arise from a
statistics on all computations going through the current state. If
not, could you say precisely when the proof go wrong?
Bruno
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.
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.
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.
