On 10 Jul 2017, at 23:11, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am just saying that universal machine can differ fro their
beliefs, and that it is a better identity criteria,
If you have a better way of identifying the beliefs of others than
observing their behavior I would very much like to hear what it is!
I am just saying that I identify a subject with his belief, or a
theory with its theorem, in some context where it simplifies the talk.
What you say is not related with what I said.
> Do you agree that the Clark and ensistenin are different
person, despite being both (universal) machine?
Sure I agree, universal machines can have different memories and
different programming. And in the real physical world it takes time
to move that tape (or its equivalent) around, and some machines can
do it faster than others. Also in the real physical world different
amounts of blank tape are available for use by different machines.
In the real would there is never a unlimited amount of tape (or it's
equivalent) available for use, there is always a limit, although
some have more tape than others.
So a Turing Machine is a excellent mathematical model of how real
computers and brains work at the fundamental level, but no model can
be perfect.
I do not assume Aristotle theology. With Plato, of course, a physical
computer is a terrestrial approximation of a "real universal machine",
which is immaterial, and belongs to the arithmetical reality.
But if you assume Aristotle *and* mechanism, you are inconsistent,
which you will understand when you get the third step right (if ever).
>> It seem to me that the observance of behavior that is
exactly the same is a great way to determine the equivalence of
personal identity; in fact I can't think of a better one.
> Because it reflects the same beliefs.
That seems like a reasonable hypothesis, but the only thing I know
for certain about other people is what their behavior is, and the
same would be true of a AI.
>> So what test can I perform in the lab to determine if
machine X is Löbian or Turing? If you have none then
it's not science.
> That is impossible.
Then it's not science just philosophical gas, a idea that can
never make advance and progress and so is a waste of time.
Then 99,9% of computer science is not science. Perhaps you think, like
Deutsch that math is not science? It is not only that there is no test
to decide if a program is universal or Löbian, there is no test to
decide if a program compute the factorial, or my tax contribution, or
the constant 0. There is simply no algorithm to decide of a semantic
of an arbitrary program, but that does not mean that we cannot write a
program with a well specified semantics. Like when I have shown that
there is no program to decide if a program given compute a total or
non-total function, but that does not prevent us to write a program
computing a total function. So, with you criteria of science, the
whole of computer science is not science.
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
