> On 19 Feb 2018, at 12:56, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 10:00:24 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 2/18/2018 6:26 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> Computers such as AlphaGo have complex algorithms for taking the rules of a >> game like chess and running through long Markov chains of game events to >> increase their data base for playing the game. There is not really anything >> about "knowing something" going on here. There is a lot of hype over AI >> these days, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do >> suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and >> conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber >> interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million > times faster than neurons? Presently neurons have an advantage in connection > density and power dissipation; but I see no reason they can hold that > advantage. > > Brent > > I think it may come down to computers that obey the Church-Turing thesis, > which is finite and bounded.
The machines are finite, but they are supposed to be in a not bounded space and time environment. > Hofstadter's book Godel Escher Bach has a chapter Bloop, Floop, Gloop where > the Bloop means bounded loop or a halting program on a Turing machine. Bounded loop prevent the machine to be universal. An halting oracle makes the machine more powerful than a universal machine, but still obeying the same machine theology. Universal machine should be in the largest class (Gloop I presume). > Biology however is not Bloop, but is rather a web of processors that are more > Floop, or free loop. It is gloop. Or we would been unable to talk about the universal machines. > The busy beaver algorithm is such a case, which grows in complexity with each > step. The computation of many fractals is this as well, where the Mandelbrot > set with each iteration on a certain scale needs refinement to another > floating point precision and thus grows in huge complexity. These of course > in practice halting because the programmer puts in by hand a stop. Assuming the programmer is not lost in a loop. No universal entity is immune against this. > These are recursively enumerable, and their complement in a set theoretic > sense are Godel loops or Gloop. ? Universal = creative set in the sense of post: it means recursively enumerable with a complement which is not (but is transfinitely enumerable in some sense). The complement is not a machine at all. > For machines to have properties at least parallel to conscious behavior we > really have to be running in at least Floop and maybe into Gloop. Universality is enough, and Löbianity is enough to be self-conscious like us. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
