> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to > implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a > machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to have > another part (A B C) which would contain the "self model". But this would be > an extra part of the "self" which would be needed to be included in the "self > model" in order to actually have a "self model", so you would need another > part (A B C (A B C)). But then again you would need to include this part as > well in the "self model". So you will get to infinite regress.
That infinite regress problem can be avoided. See my answer to a post to Brent (sent today). The idea is simple: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. In this case, DD will never stop, and that is the usual “first” recursion. But you can make a program stopping on its own code, by using special quotation, or some typical computer science construct, like the SMN theorem of Kleene. It is more like: If D’x’ gives ‘x’x’’, then D’D’ gives ‘D’D’’. That is the staring point of almost all of theoretical computer science, and the study of self-reeve,ce in arithmetical is very well developed. Thismisses the first person self-reference, which typically does not admit any formalisation (provably so), but it is still can be shown to exist, making he point that the universal machine knows that they have a first person notion, and knows that they cannot define it. The machine are as much confused as us with Ramona Mahasrhi koan: “Who am I?”. > Therefore, you need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect > without getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the > self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable. As I said, the machine already knows this. The universal machine (number, combinator, or physical) knows that they have a soul (immaterial, immortal, and responsible for the illusion of the physical universe and its lawfulness). > And as you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping consciousness > into existence. OK. > You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with atoms. > Self-reference just is. Not OK. You can simulate the self-reference with atoms, and that enacts the experience of the first person, which is distributed on the whole arithmetic, and can be shown to be non formalisable, nor even definable. > It just is the source of the entire existence. It is the source of the entire physical existence, but we have to assume the numbers, or the combinators. > Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of existence. Indeed. > You can never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning, purpose, free > will, memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around > with a bunch of atoms. You cannot singularise them in some reality, and indeed atoms are immaterial constructs depending on intrinsic relation between all universal machine/number/combinators. > All these properties of consciousness are having their source in the > unformalizable self-reference. Yes, but still amenable to meta-formalisation, when we assume mechanism, which then explains in detail why the first person is not formalisable, and indeed independent of formalisation. Bruno > > On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote: > each consciousness bootstraps its own > meaning from 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. > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
