Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

God is outside of spacetime (in uncreated) , so your actions were imaginary.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-07, 16:10:00
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are the 
 number one defender of the Christian's conception of God. 

OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.

Incidentally when I went out to my car today I found that I that a flat God, so 
I jacked up the car, got a spare God out of my trunk and took the punctured God 
off the axle and put on the spare God. I think the old God has a nail in it so 
I'm going to take it to the God repair shop to see if they can remove it and 
put a patch on the old God so I'll still have a spare God.? 

?ohn K Clark
?
?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Nobody has to believe anything I say.
I thought that was a given.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-08, 04:44:44
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.

I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.

I try not to use that  word (God) but sometimes forget. 


I can see that. No problem if it is an accepted fuzzy pointer on our ignorance. 
Big problem if you reify it into a final explanation. I like the term cosmic, 
but only as poetry. The cosmos existence is an open problem for me.


Bruno






Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; + 
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is 
equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall in the 
authoritative trap.


Bruno








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.

I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence
or Cosmnic Mind.

I try not to use that  word (God) but sometimes forget. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.


I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; + 
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is 
equivalent with don't ask for more understanding, and you fall in the 
authoritative trap.


Bruno








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

What is UD ?



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:


Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.



The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do not violate Church Thesis.





A computational description of the brain is just a relative, approximate
description, nothing more. It doesn't actually reflect what the brain is or
what it does.



The bet the computationalists do, is that nature has already build an emulator, 
through the brain, and that's why a computer might be able to emulate its 
programming, by nature, evolution, etc. And we can copy it without 
understanding, like a virus can copy a file without understanding of its 
content.


Molecular biology is already digital relatively to chemistry. Don't take this 
as argument for comp, but as showing your argument against is not valid.


Bruno






http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I've been defending cosmic intelligence (CI)
or Cosmic Mind,  of Life , not the christian God, not 
the whole shebang, the Trinity.  
But actually I think they're probably all the same.


CI was there before the world was created-- for sure,  
else the world could not have
been  created. But since CI created time and space 
the argument is irrevant.  And I don't know
what God can think, that much is Christian. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 God created the human race.

And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why haven't 
I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come up with?





The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a question. 


Nor does Arithmetical Truth. 


God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it inconsistent.


Still defending the Christian God, aren't you?


Bruno








 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 

There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler and 
people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both excretory and 
reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me either, much less 
infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and nerves for the retina 
of the eye in front not in the back so the light must pass through them to get 
to the light sensitive cells also does not seem very smart; no engineer in his 
right mind would place the gears to move the film in a camera so that the light 
must pass through the gears before hitting the film. That's not the sort of 
thing you'd expect God to do, but it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to 
do.

 John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:




 From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

 God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence

And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be)
then the human race is God.

 or life itself.

If as you say God is life then we know 2 things:

1) God exists.

2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in
the idea of God.

 As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created,

I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the
limitations of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do
and why He can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I
have no doubt He would be even more interested in how He works than I am.
And if the God theory can not even come close to explain one bit of that
(and it can't) then it has not explained anything at all, it just adds
pointless wheels within wheels that accomplish absolutely nothing.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

No, God created the human race.
So the human race cannot be God.

IMHO God is the uncreated infinite intelligence 
behind/before/beyond/within Creation itself. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:20:44
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence





On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:





From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
 God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence 
And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be) then 
the human race is God. 
 or life itself. 
If as you say God is life then we know 2 things:
1) God exists.
2) You are more interested in the ASCII characters G-o-d than you are in the 
idea of God.
 As to what he can do, there are some limitations in the world he created, 
I'm not talking about the world God created, I'm interested in the limitations 
of God Himself, I'm interested in how God can do what He can do and why He 
can't do what He can't do, and if God really does exist then I have no doubt He 
would be even more interested in how He works than I am. And if the God theory 
can not even come close to explain one bit of that (and it can't) then it has 
not explained anything at all, it just adds pointless wheels within wheels that 
accomplish absolutely nothing.
John K Clark 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 God created the human race.


And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?

 God is the uncreated infinite intelligence


There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler
and people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both
excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me
either, much less infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood vessels and
nerves for the retina of the eye in front not in the back so the light must
pass through them to get to the light sensitive cells also does not seem
very smart; no engineer in his right mind would place the gears to move the
film in a camera so that the light must pass through the gears before
hitting the film. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect God to do, but
it's exactly what you'd expect Evolution to do.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence or life itself. 
As to what he can do, there are some limitations
in the world he created, for that world is contingent
and so contains some missing pieces, misfits, defects, all of that stuff. 
Crap happens.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 12:28:15
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:? 

?
 God is necessary because He runs the whole show. 

And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the 
whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How do 
my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have become 
adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains that if you 
can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains absolutely 
positively nothing. ? 

? John K Clark 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

From the standpoint of Leibniz's metaphysics,
God is necessary because He runs the whole
show. In that case, the concept of gap is irrelevent.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?



Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible. 


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.



This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying
to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive
a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my objections,
only intended to be constructive, which is rude. So

What parts or part of a DNA molecule controls life ?
The code is just a bunch of letters, same problem as
with the computer.  

Letters can't think. A thinker is needed.

To repeat, code by itself can't control anything.
The code is no different than a map without a reader.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


William,




On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by 
the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or 
controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational 
variation being higher-level controls on genome.

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes 
of molecules ? ATP generation for one is rather well understood
these days.

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to 
context issues.




I agree with all this. I guess you know that. If you think I said anything 
incoherent with this, please quote me.


Bruno







wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:





On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 


JOHN: That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your 
skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What 
is that way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain 
have that a electron in a chip does not have?
ROGER: Life.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:46:03
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


? The self is subjective and I can think of?o way that objective machine
codes and silicon chips could produce that. 

That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your skull 
squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity. What is that 
way, what vital ingredient does a? neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have 
that a electron in a chip does not have?



 The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to implement 
 on silicon in binary code.

Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms have. In 
other words you believe in vitalism. I don't. 


? Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and ever 
shall be, beyond spacetime
?
Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or at a 
time. And that is clearly incorrect.? 


 So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God


If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained 
anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be infinitely 
bored. 



 If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or perhaps 
 cosmic mind. 

How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a perfectly 
respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained something when you 
really have not.

? John K Clark? 

?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Are you saying that comp creates and controls all by means of some kind of code
in some Pythagorean realm, where all is numbers ? That everything is computable 
?



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:




Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form ? i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?



Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...

My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many marbles 
they are. 


Not necessarily. A n-piles of marbles can emulate a m-pile of marbles.






I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then releases an equal 
weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated marbles, there would 
be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles has taken place. Nothing 
has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a simple lever that opens a 
chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy enough to close the chute. There 
is no possibility of understanding at all, just a mindless enactment of 
behaviors. No mind, just machine.

To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.



It is hard to follow your logic. Like someone told to you, a silicon robot 
could make the equivalent argument: explain me how a carbon based set of 
molecules can write english poems ...

By your logic, I would have to explain how Bugs Bunny can't become a person 
too. 


It can. In some universal environment, it is quite possible that bugs bunny 
like beings become persons. 






As far as we know, we can't survive on any food that isn't carbon based. As far 
as we know, all living organisms need water to survive. 


On our planet, but you extrapolate too much.




Why should this be the case in a comp universe?



Open and hard problem, but a priori, life can takes different forms.







I think that the problem is that you don't take your own view that physical 
matter is not primitive seriously. Like you, I see matter not as a stuff that 
independently exists, but as a projection of the exterior side of bodies making 
sense of each other - or the sense of selves making an exterior side of body 
sense to face each other. From that perspective it isn't the carbon that is 
meaningful, the carbon (H2O, sugars, amino acids, lipids really), the carbon is 
just the symptom, the shadow. Carbon is the command line 'OPEN BIOAVAILABILITY 
DICTIONARY which gives the thing access to the palette of histories associated 
with living organisms rather than astrophysical or geological events.



This is not inconsistent with comp, but I don't find this plausible. In fact I 
believe that all civilisation in our physical universe end up into a giant 
topological computing machinery (a quark star, whose stability depends on 
sophisticated error tolerant sort of quantum computation) virtualising their 
past and future. Carbon might be just a step in life development. We might 
already be virtual and living in such a star. But more deeply, we are already 
all in arithmetic.


Bruno





















Sense is irreducible. 


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.



This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of 
computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. 


?



How does the programming get in the program?








Why does anything need to leave Platonia? 


OK. (comp entails indeed that we have never leave Platonia, but again, this beg 
the 

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  what vital ingredient does a neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have
 that a electron in a chip does not have?

  ROGER: Life.

Yes life, I was afraid you might say that. It may interest you to know that
the Latin word for Life is vita, it's where the word vitalism comes
from. And by the way, even creepy creationists don't think neurotransmitter
chemicals are alive.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



  God is necessary because He runs the whole show.


And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the
whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How
do my powers work?, what answer does He come up with? The religious have
become adept at dodging that question with bafflegab but the fact remains
that if you can't provide a substantive answer then the God theory explains
absolutely positively nothing.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

No, presumably each software program is different.
So the machine is still controlled in various ways  by the programmer.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:42:26
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. 

If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be 
absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the 
machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem. And 
you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you expect a 
computer to.
?
 To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices?eyond that.

We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a 
philosophical absurdity. It does not. 



They should? be able to beat me at?oker even though they have no poker program.?

Why?? You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and 
neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about how 
the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good because at 
the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won all your money at 
poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it again, if computers 
don't have intelligence then they have something better. 


 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
 could function.


And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things 
functioning?

? John K Clark 


?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

Vitalism is simply life.  Otherwise an organism or whatever is dead.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 15:54:47
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012? Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:



 do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's 
 really nothing but an ad hominem attack.


It's not ad hominem if its true. We can't be talking about anything except 
vitalism and as one of the most enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this 
list I'm surprised you consider the term an insult. 


 We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters 


Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that 
computer chips lack. 
?
 organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic 
 qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense.


That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when it was 
all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today.? 


 This is not vitalism.


How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism??? Clearly you 
believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips lack; perhaps 
you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference and prefer 
some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing.? ? 



 Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by the 
 programmer

Absolutely!? 



 but that these outcomes are trivial

If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a 
multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world. ? 



Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it can't come up 
with the invention of Elvis Presley, 

Not true. You can make a Turing Machine out of things other than a long paper 
tape, you can make one out of the game of life by using the gliders to send 
information; and if you started with the correct initial conditions you could 
have a game of life Turing Machine instruct matter how to move so that the 
matter was indistinguishable from the flesh and blood king of rock and roll.? 



 We only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside 
 intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those 
 introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that

The opposite of? automatic way is random way.

? John K Clark





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi William R. Buckley 

OK, DNA is wetware If you like.

But I am conscious, as are all living entities, and
that's the 1p problem, as I understand it, even for a bacterium,
and that cannot be solved because it is indeterminate.

To be alive, one must be able to think on one's own, 
to be able to make choices on one's own, not choices
made by soft- or wetware. 

To have intelligence, one must have a self, 
and software cannot even emulate that.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: William R. Buckley 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:22:31
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger:

It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, 
that DNA is a physical representation of program.

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. 
DNA).

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist

Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 
Richard
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 
BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 
ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


What is DNA if not software?


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist
 
Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 
Richard


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 
ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence 




On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi meekerdb 

IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence 
because intelligence consists of at least one ability: 
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely 
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, 
they can only do what softward and harfdware

RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[William R. Buckley]

This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:

  So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

 

wrb

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

 

Hi Richard Ruquist 

 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.

So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

 

Roger Clough,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

What is DNA if not software?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist

　

Pre-ordained is a religious position 　

And we aren't controlled by software. 

　

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

8/29/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02

Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 

in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 

Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 

ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following

instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that

synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 


More below, but I will stop here for now.

--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 

Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of

its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 

ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.


BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.

But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,

contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 


So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

   The self is subjective and I can think of no way that objective machine
 codes and silicon chips could produce that.


That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your
skull squirting out neurotransmitter chemicals can produce subjectivity.
What is that way, what vital ingredient does a  neurotransmitter chemical
in a brain have that a electron in a chip does not have?

 The self must be alive and conscious, two functions impossible to
 implement on silicon in binary code.


Then silicon is lacking something vital that carbon and hydrogen atoms
have. In other words you believe in vitalism. I don't.

  Personally I believe that life cannot be created, it simply is/was/and
 ever shall be, beyond spacetime


Translated from the original bafflegab: Life does not exist in a place or
at a time. And that is clearly incorrect.

 So the universe and all life was produced as a thought in the mind of God


If you can't explain how God did this then you really haven't explained
anything at all and haven't given God very much to do, He must be
infinitely bored.

 If you don't like the word God replace it above with supreme monad or
 perhaps cosmic mind.


How about replacing it with a big I don't know. Not knowing is a
perfectly respectable state to be in, unlike pretending to explained
something when you really have not.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 

ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:  Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 

ROGER:  OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it  by logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.  IMHO anything that a computer 
does still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true. 

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence 




On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi meekerdb 

IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence 
because intelligence consists of at least one ability: 
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely 
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, 
they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. 

Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the 
choosing, 
and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. 
Godel, perhaps, I speculate. 


I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines 
are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science 
is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much 
autonomous, a bit like children education. 


Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/27/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29 
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers 


On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
 On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote: 
 
 
 I agree different implementations of intelligence have different 
 capabilities and 
 roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any 
 intelligence (so long 
 as infinities or true randomness are not 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

Indeed, only I can know that I actually feel pain.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:39:09
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
 is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in
 I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms.

A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the
special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly
feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but
that's just an act with no real feeling behind it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own.
 BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own
 software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a
 command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use
 of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives
 xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself.
 You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by
 generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene
 justifies its existence for all universal systems.

 ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

 If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new,
 it is merely following
 instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to
 some algorithm.

 If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish.
 Which is to say that
 synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought.

 More below, but I will stop here for now.

 --
 Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the
 hardware.
 Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct
 (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No.
 And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in
 his software program and constrained by the hardware.

 What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly
 free will.
 Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means
 freely, of
 its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not
 limited by it.


 BRUNO:  Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set?
 He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation
 of fractals in nature.

 ROGER:  OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it  by
 logic, although it no doubt has its own logic.

 BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to
 tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer
 science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't
 know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the
 wrong work.

 This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was
 miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
 But on reflection, I no longer believe that.  IMHO anything
 that a computer does still must follow its own internal logic,
 contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language,
 even if those calculations are of infinite complexity.
 Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that
 must be true.

 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.


 BRUNO: You hope.


 Bruno








 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net
 8/28/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




 On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:


 Hi meekerdb

 IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
 because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
 the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
 of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own,
 they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do.

 Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does
 the choosing,
 and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system.
 Godel, perhaps, I speculate.


 I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that
 machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied
 computer science is used to help controlling what can really become
 uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education.


 Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so.


 Bruno








 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net
 8/27/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: meekerdb
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29
 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of
 computers


 On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
  On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, 

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stathis Papaioannou \

Good point. The argument fails.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:35:36
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 You are talking about a robot, not a human.
 At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy.
 Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an
 atheist or theist.
 For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind.

You assume the thing that you set out to prove: that a computer cannot
be intelligent or conscious.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

Pre-ordained is a religious position  
And we aren't controlled by software. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
Richard


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 
?
ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
?
If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following
instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 
?
If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that
synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 

More below, but I will stop here for now.
--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 
Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of
its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:? Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 
?
ROGER:? OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.

BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 
?
This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,
contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true.?

So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence 




On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi meekerdb 

IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence 
because intelligence consists of at least one ability: 
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely 
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, 
they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. 

Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the 
choosing, 
and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. 
Godel, perhaps, I speculate. 


I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines 
are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science 
is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much 
autonomous, a bit like children education. 


Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8

RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[William R. Buckley]

Roger:

 

It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, 

that DNA is a physical representation of program.

 

Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. 
DNA).

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

Pre-ordained is a religious position  

And we aren't controlled by software. 

 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

8/29/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02

Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

Roger, Do you think that humans do not function 

in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? 

Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, 
neither of which are their own. 

BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software 
and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, 
but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous 
diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD 
gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. 
You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization 
of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its 
existence for all universal systems. 

�

ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.

�

If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is 
merely following

instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some 
algorithm. 

�

If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which 
is to say that

synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. 


More below, but I will stop here for now.

--
Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware.
Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably 
according to some rules of construction) ? No. 
And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his 
software program and constrained by the hardware. 

What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free 
will. 

Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of

its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited 
by it.


BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He 
said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of 
fractals in nature. 

�

ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, 
although it no doubt has its own logic.


BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously 
complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you 
understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are 
doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. 

�

This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was 
miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.

But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does 
still must follow its own internal logic,

contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even 
if those calculations are of infinite complexity. 
Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must 
be true.�


So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only 
make decisions intended by the software programmer. 


BRUNO: You hope. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:+rclo...@verizon.net  
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function. 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence 




On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi meekerdb 

IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence 
because intelligence consists of at least one ability: 
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely 
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, 
they can only

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do.


If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be
absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the
machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem.
And you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you
expect a computer to.


  To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that.


We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a
philosophical absurdity. It does not.

They should  be able to beat me at poker even though they have no poker
 program.


Why?  You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and
neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about
how the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good
because at the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won
all your money at poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it
again, if computers don't have intelligence then they have something
better.

 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.


And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things
functioning?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


  

 Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – 
 i.e. DNA).

It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can 
say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of 
unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What 
makes anything readable to anything?

Sense is irreducible. No software can control anything, even itself, unless 
something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to 
execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rs-VsPOMIRsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  If a computer could compute new knowledge, how would you know whether it
 is new or not, or even what it means ? This is called the translation
 problem.


If a person could create new knowledge, how would you know whether it is
new or not, or even what it means? This is called the bullshit problem.

  John K Clark



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Richard Ruquist]

What is DNA if not software?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Richard Ruquist

 Pre-ordained is a religious position
 And we aren't controlled by software.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
 intelligence

  Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
 in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
 Richard

 On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own.
 BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own
 software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a
 command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use
 of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives
 xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself.
 You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by
 generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene
 justifies its existence for all universal systems.
 �
 ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not.
 �
 If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new,
 it is merely following
 instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to
 some algorithm.
 �
 If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish.
 Which is to say that
 synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought.

 More below, but I will stop here for now.

 --
 Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the
 hardware.
 Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct
 (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No.
 And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author
 in his software program and constrained by the hardware.

 What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly
 free will.
 Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means
 freely, of
 its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not
 limited by it.


 BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot
 set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of
 observation of fractals in nature.
 �
 ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic,
 although it no doubt has its own logic.

 BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to
 tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer
 science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't
 know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the
 wrong work.
 �
 This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought
 was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking.
 But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer
 does still must follow its own internal logic,
 contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language,
 even if those calculations are of infinite complexity.
 Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that
 must be true.�

 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.


 BRUNO: You hope.


 Bruno








 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net
 8/28/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Bruno Marchal
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




 On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:


 Hi meekerdb

 IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
 because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
 the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
 of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own,
 they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do.

 Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that
 does the choosing,
 and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system.
 Godel, perhaps, I speculate.


 I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that
 machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied
 computer science is used to help

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware,
neither of which are their own. And so, machines cannot do anything
not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by 
the hardware.  
So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
make decisions intended by the software programmer.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb 

IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own,
they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. 

Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the 
choosing,
and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system.
Godel, perhaps, I speculate. 


I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines 
are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science 
is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much 
autonomous, a bit like children education.  


Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so.


Bruno








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/27/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote:


 I agree different implementations of intelligence have different 
 capabilities and 
 roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any 
 intelligence (so long 
 as infinities or true randomness are not required).

 And now a subtle point. Perhaps.

 The point is that computers are general enough to replicate intelligence EVEN 
 if 
 infinities and true randomness are required for it.

 Imagine that our consciousness require some ORACLE. For example under the 
 form of a some 
 non compressible sequence 11101111011000110101011011... (say)

 Being incompressible, that sequence cannot be part of my brain at my 
 substitution level, 
 because this would make it impossible for the doctor to copy my brain into a 
 finite 
 string. So such sequence operates outside my brain, and if the doctor copy 
 me at the 
 right comp level, he will reconstitute me with the right interface to the 
 oracle, so I 
 will survive and stay conscious, despite my consciousness depends on that 
 oracle.

 Will the UD, just alone, or in arithmetic, be able to copy me in front of 
 that oracle?

 Yes, as the UD dovetails on all programs, but also on all inputs, and in this 
 case, he 
 will generate me successively (with large delays in between) in front of all 
 finite 
 approximation of the oracle, and (key point), the first person indeterminacy 
 will have 
 as domain, by definition of first person, all the UD computation where my 
 virtual brain 
 use the relevant (for my consciousness) part of the oracle.

 A machine can only access to finite parts of an oracle, in course of a 
 computation 
 requiring oracle, and so everything is fine.

That's how I imagine COMP instantiates the relation between the physical world 
and 
consciousness; that the physical world acts like the oracle and provides 
essential 
interactions with consciousness as a computational process. Of course that 
doesn't 
require that the physical world be an oracle - it may be computable too.

Brent


 Of course, if we need the whole oracular sequence, in one step, then comp 
 would be just 
 false, and the brain need an infinite interface.

 The UD dovetails really on all programs, with all possible input, even 
 infinite non 
 computable one.

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Bruno Marchal

 I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
 hardware,
 neither of which are their own. And so, machines cannot do anything
 not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained
 by the hardware.
 So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only
 make decisions intended by the software programmer.

Could you explain how humans are *not* constrained by their software
and hardware?

I think you have a magical view about how biological organisms function.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark 

But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. 
To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that.
They should  be able to beat me at poker even though they have
no poker program. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 13:48:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



On Mon, Aug 27, 2012? Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

?
 I don't think that computers can have intelligence


But computers can solve equations better than you, play a game of chess better 
than you, be a better research librarian than you and win more money on 
Jeopardy than you; so it they don't have intelligence they apparently have 
something better.

? John K Clark? ? 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

You are talking about a robot, not a human.
At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy.
Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an 
atheist or theist.
For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/28/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-27, 22:00:42
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi meekerdb

 IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
 because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
 the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
 of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own,
 they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do.

But people must also do only what their software and hardware tells
them to do. The hardware is the body and the software is the
configuration the hardware is placed in as a result of their exposure
to their environment.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Stathis Papaioannou

 Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
 is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in
 I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms.

A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the
special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly
feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but
that's just an act with no real feeling behind it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.