> On 18 Apr 2019, at 03:00, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:25:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Rover is conscious, but still dissociated from ‘rover”. But that is just >> because it has no strong induction axiom, and no way to build approximation >> of >> models of itself. It lack a re-entring neural system rich enough to manage >> the >> gap between its first person apprehension, and the third person apparent >> reality around it. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an >> entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real >> self-reference. >> >> >> I agree. It is unclear for me if Mars Rover has it, or not, as I have not >> seen >> the code, and even seeing it, it could ba a Helle of a difficulty to prove it >> has not that ability. I doubt it has it, because Naza does not want a free >> exploratory on Mars, but a docile slave. > > > I do think self-reference has something to do with it, as without an > observer to give meaning to something, it has no meaning.
The essence of a universal number is to provide meaning, it associates to number/code some function, or some truth value if the function is a predicate. What is the meaning of the number x for the number u? It is phi_x, a function. (I recall for the others that, when phi_i represents a recursive (computable) enumeration of all partial computable functions, a number u is universal means that phi_u(<x,y>) = phi_x(y). <x,y> is some computable bijection from NxN to N. > For > instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as > a machine, it is just a pile of atoms. Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, when nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough observation abilities? > Unless you propose a la Bishop > Berkley some sort of devine mind from which all meaning radiates, The universal numbers are divine enough. The (finite) code of a universal dovetailer radiates all operational meaning of all codes. > the > only other possibility is that each consciousness bootstraps its own > meaning from self-reference. That has to be the case for self-consciousness. It is a sort of self-self-reference. > Unless the mars rover has a self model in > its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would > extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness. OK, Rover has no self-consciousness (plausibly), but it has the consciousness of the universal machine/number. It is a dissociative state, probably not related, in any genuine way, to Mars Rover activity on Mars. It is still a baby, and most probably does not distinguish truth from its inner truth. Bruno > A more interesting > possibility is Hod Lipson's "starfish" robot, which has self-reference baked > in. > > Cheers > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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. -- 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.
