Re: Belief, faith, truth
Norman, As far as I understand you, we agree (on this a t least). The explanation on the list that I was alluding toward, is here, so you could perhaps verify: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html Bruno Le 05-févr.-06, à 00:51, Norman Samish a écrit : Bruno, Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say my argument is not valid. Granted, much of what you write is unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've said so far: (Norman ONE) My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible. If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible. (Bruno ONE) This could be a reasonable conjecture. I have explain on the list that if we are a simulation then indeed after a finite time we could have strong evidence that this is the case, for example by discoveries of discrepancies between the comp-physics and the observed physics. (Norman TWO) Humans have not made the discovery that they are simulations, therefore the most PROBABLE (emphasis added) situation is that we are not simulations. (Bruno TWO) This argument is not valid. The reason is that if we could be correct simulation (if that exists), then that would remain essentially undecidable. (Then I could argue the premise is false. Violation of bell's inequalities could be taken as an argument that we are in a simulation (indeed in the infinity of simulation already present in the mathematical running of a universal dovetailer, or arithmetical truth.) (Norman THREE) I don't understand the part of Bruno TWO in parentheses - I'm not asking you to explain it to me. Are you saying that a perfect simulation would not necessarily discover it was a simulation? If so, I agree. This is supported in Bruno ONE where you said it was reasonable that if we are a simulation we would, in finite time, discover that this is the case. Therefore it seems to me that my statement in Norman TWO is correct - note my inclusion of the word probable. Do you agree? Or am I missing your point? Norman http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: belief, faith, truth
Le 05-févr.-06, à 03:07, Russell Standish a écrit : On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached loebianity 200,000 years ago. I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our species. That's the point. There is a fair bit of evidence that something significant happened to human brain function around 40,000 years ago (see Steven Mithen's Prehistory of the Mind). Once a universal machine appears relatively to another one, we can expect recurring surprises, actually in some spiral way once they get the memory of their experiences. There was an explosion of representational art that occurred around that time. Like that! And it is nothing compared to what written language will add, and that is nothing compared to what silicon universal machine will add, etc. On the other hand, there is also evidence that other apes (Chimpanzees, a Gorilla, the Gibbon and so on) are capable of self awareness so maybe Loebianity arose 7-8 Mya. I am very open to that idea. But it is hard to test. Elephants could be good candidate too for loebianity in the sense that it seems there are evidences that they can distinguish third person death and first person death, which is a key symptom of loebianity. I am not really a zoologist and find hard to have precise opinions on that. Note that loebianity is a little more than self-awareness. It is more like self-awareness awareness. Interesting degrees of self-awareness are described modal logically in the recreative book by Smullyan: Forever Undecided. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: belief, faith, truth
Jeanne Houston wrote: I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in order to enhance my own understanding. There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet you seem to delve into very philosophical questions. Are the philosophical discussions applicable to the development of AI (i.e., trying to grasp all aspects of the mind of man if you are trying to develop a true copy), or are they only interesting diversions that pop-up from time to time. My thanks to anyone who wishes to respond. Jeanne Houston My answer is probably too short, but I want to take the risk of being misinterpreted in order to be plain: We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are THINKING ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS (e.g. philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that DOING THINGS (engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking at the advantage that we humans have over machines. We have the capability to not just do things, but to know why we are doing them. This runs counter to the whole PHILOSOPHY (mind you) of modern science, that we are simply machines, and that there is no WHY. This modern philosophy, if taken to its extreme, is the death of the humanness. Tom Caylor
Re: belief, faith, truth
To realize that we are just machines in a physical world, and that this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering conceptualization. To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then to emerge from the void, to see that all is as it was, but standing on physical law, both known and not yet known, is to gain the freedom to grow. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net Increasing awareness for increasing morality On 2/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are THINKING ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS (e.g. philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that DOING THINGS (engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking at the advantage that we humans have over machines. We have the capability to not just do things, but to know why we are doing them. This runs counter to the whole PHILOSOPHY (mind you) of modern science, that we are simply machines, and that there is no WHY. This modern philosophy, if taken to its extreme, is the death of the humanness.
Artificial Philosophizing
Bruno wrote: Jeanne Houston wrote: I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in order to enhance my own understanding. There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet you seem to delve into very philosophical questions. Are the philosophical discussions applicable to the development of AI I would say so, but probably not in a predictible way ... Today the reverse is still more true. (i.e., trying to grasp all aspects of the mind of man if you are trying to develop a true copy), ... or in some indirect way perhaps, by giving evidences that no man can grasp all aspect of man, so that if we make a copy, some bets or hopes, or faith, or things like that are in order. or are they only interesting diversions that pop-up from time to time. My thanks to anyone who wishes to respond. Jeanne Houston I do use explicitly the computationailist hypothesis (the thesis that I am a machine) which is stronger than the strong AI thesis (machine can think). Actually I am no more in need of comp (I realised that my theory works for a large variety of non-machines), but, still, with the comp hyp, the reasoning is simpler. Bruno On 2/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are THINKING ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS (e.g. philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that DOING THINGS (engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking at the advantage that we humans have over machines. We have the capability to not just do things, but to know why we are doing them. This runs counter to the whole PHILOSOPHY (mind you) of modern science, that we are simply machines, and that there is no WHY. This modern philosophy, if taken to its extreme, is the death of the humanness. Tom Caylor Jef Allbright wrote: To realize that we are just machines in a physical world, and that this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering conceptualization. To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then to emerge from the void, to see that all is as it was, but standing on physical law, both known and not yet known, is to gain the freedom to grow. - Jef http://www.jefallbright.net Increasing awareness for increasing morality Brent Meeker wrote: I think you've got it the wrong way 'round. The view of modern science is that we are machines and machines can do philosophy and know they are doing it and can have reasons why. It is the death of human hubris - which may eventually succumb to the wounds it has received since Copernicus. Brent Meeker So Bruno says that: a) I am a machine. b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of humanness that is more than a machine (i.e. simply following a set of instructions). Jef and Brent say that we are machines who (that?) philosophize. Brent says that realizing we are machines is the beginning of (or another step in) the death of human hubris (arrogance). I thought that Bruno maintains that humility is on the side of realizing that we cannot totally understand ourselves. Pascal, Reason can begin again when we recognize what we cannot know. Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense? Tom
Re: Artificial Philosophizing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense? Given that we believe in sense? Who/what gives that? Do we believe in that? Georges.
