Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Mar 2019, at 13:43, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 5:18:43 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 14 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift gmail.com 
>> > wrote:
>>  
>> > We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current 
>> > events, know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is 
>> > an open question. 
>> 
>> I don't think it's a open question at all. I can state without reservation 
>> that regardless of how intelligent computers become they will never be 
>> creative because the word "creative" now means whatever computers aren't 
>> good at. Yet. And thus due to Moore's Law and improved programing the 
>> meaning of the word constantly changes. What was creative yesterday isn't 
>> creative today.
>> 
>> > On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of 
>> > language, and languages change.
>> 
>> If mathematics is just a language (as I think it is) then it can not be used 
>> to construct things, in particular it can't, by itself without the use of 
>> matter, construct a Turing Machine as Bruno claims it can. English is also a 
>> language but an English word has no meaning without an English speaker with 
>> a physical brain to hear it.
>> 
>>  John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There is some AI art that sells at galleries
>> 
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2018/oct/26/call-that-art-can-a-computer-be-a-painter
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> but that's about it I've seen.
>> 
>> Turing machines in theoretical computing/math books are all fictional 
>> things, of course.
> 
> “Of course”?
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> All actual computers are made of matter.
> 
> No doubt that this is true, but that is not an argument that such matter are 
> not (stable) appearances.
> 
> But as I try to explain here from times to times, the arithmetical reality 
> explains where and why such stable appearances appears. If I can say.
> 
> You just seem to be a believer in a Primary Matter, but I have never seen one 
> evidence for it. Initially, “mathematician” were not believer in a 
> mathematical reality, but a skeptic toward the idea that matter is the 
> primitive reality we have to assume. But with mechanism, we don’t have to 
> assume matter, it explains matter, and unlike physicalism, it explains how 
> consciousness remains associated to the appearances of matter.
> 
> You seem to beg the question by deciding that math objects are fiction and 
> physics object is not.
> 
> No problem, but then digital mechanism is false. But there are no evidences, 
> it is just an old habit since the closure of Plato academy;
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could also look at it as a pragmatist.


This depends on your goal. Physics is better in prediction, than metaphysics 
and theology, except person for the first person expectation when taken 
seriously, but pragmatism is OK.




> 
> Say I want to make something. I could say "I want to make it out of 
> arithmetic (numbers).”


This would be like using string theory to prepare a pizza. 

I just let you know the logical consequence of YD + CT (indexical mechanism, 
“yes doctor” + “Church-Turing”). 

Then it is hard not to see how much contemporary physics confirms it.




> But ways to actually do that is something like to write a program where 
> "numbers" do things in a computer. But we know what is going on here is 
> electrons moving through circuits and pixels.

I have no idea what the electron are. The best I can find are books in quantum 
field theory which describes only intricate number relation, predicting rather 
well most measurable numbers related to the electron phenomenon. The physicists 
can even tell us if there is only one electron or many (cf Dirac).


> 
> It could be "running" in my brain (assuming I can imagine the program 
> executing). But that does nobody else any good.

It is the “in my brain” which might seem preposterous. 




> 
> Or I could type it up and file it away for later on a hard drive.
> 
> Electrons, circuits, pixels, brain cells, hard drives. Matter.

Or digital clock mechanism, like with Babbage machine, or just anything from 
any Turing complete reality, but if we assume mechanism, it is just undecidable 
introspectively, yet testable by observing nature. Up to now, what the 
physicist find incomprehensible is what all universal machine “rich enough” 
discover all by itself.



> 
> On whether some ultimate Löb-Gödel theorem prover can "explain" self-aware 
> experiences: I still think that there are non-numerical first-class 
> experiential entities that are needed to completely "flesh out" true 
> experience. (And those can only come from matter.)


I understand quite well

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 5:18:43 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> *> We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current 
>>> events, know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is 
>>> an open question. *
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a open question at all. I can state without 
>> reservation that regardless of how intelligent computers become they will 
>> *never* be creative because the word "creative" now means whatever 
>> computers aren't good at. Yet. And thus due to Moore's Law and improved 
>> programing the meaning of the word constantly changes. What was creative 
>> yesterday isn't creative today.
>>
>> *> On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of 
>>> language, and languages change.*
>>>
>>
>> If mathematics is just a language (as I think it is) then it can not be 
>> used to construct things, in particular it can't, by itself without the use 
>> of matter, construct a Turing Machine as Bruno claims it can. English is 
>> also a language but an English word has no meaning without an English 
>> speaker with a physical brain to hear it.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
>
>
> There is some AI art that sells at galleries
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2018/oct/26/call-that-art-can-a-computer-be-a-painter
>
> but that's about it I've seen.
>
> Turing machines in theoretical computing/math books are all fictional 
> things, of course.
>
>
> “Of course”?
>
>
>
>
> All actual computers are made of matter.
>
>
> No doubt that this is true, but that is not an argument that such matter 
> are not (stable) appearances.
>
> But as I try to explain here from times to times, the arithmetical reality 
> explains where and why such stable appearances appears. If I can say.
>
> You just seem to be a believer in a Primary Matter, but I have never seen 
> one evidence for it. Initially, “mathematician” were not believer in a 
> mathematical reality, but a skeptic toward the idea that matter is the 
> primitive reality we have to assume. But with mechanism, we don’t have to 
> assume matter, it explains matter, and unlike physicalism, it explains how 
> consciousness remains associated to the appearances of matter.
>
> You seem to beg the question by deciding that math objects are fiction and 
> physics object is not.
>
> No problem, but then digital mechanism is false. But there are no 
> evidences, it is just an old habit since the closure of Plato academy;
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

One could also look at it as a pragmatist.

Say I want to *make something*. I could say "I want to make it out of 
arithmetic (numbers)." But ways to actually do that is something like to 
write a program where "numbers" do things in a computer. But we know what 
is going on here is electrons moving through circuits and pixels.

It could be "running" in my brain (assuming I can imagine the program 
executing). But that does nobody else any good.

Or I could type it up and file it away for later on a hard drive.

Electrons, circuits, pixels, brain cells, hard drives. Matter.

On whether some ultimate Löb-Gödel theorem prover can "explain" self-aware 
experiences: I still think that there are non-numerical first-class 
experiential entities that are needed to completely "flesh out" true 
experience. (And those can only come from matter.)


- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:54:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>  
> > We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current events, 
> > know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is an open 
> > question. 
> 
> I don't think it's a open question at all. I can state without reservation 
> that regardless of how intelligent computers become they will never be 
> creative because the word "creative" now means whatever computers aren't good 
> at. Yet. And thus due to Moore's Law and improved programing the meaning of 
> the word constantly changes. What was creative yesterday isn't creative today.
> 
> > On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of 
> > language, and languages change.
> 
> If mathematics is just a language (as I think it is) then it can not be used 
> to construct things, in particular it can't, by itself without the use of 
> matter, construct a Turing Machine as Bruno claims it can. English is also a 
> language but an English word has no meaning without an English speaker with a 
> physical brain to hear it.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> There is some AI art that sells at galleries
> 
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2018/oct/26/call-that-art-can-a-computer-be-a-painter
>  
> 
> 
> but that's about it I've seen.
> 
> Turing machines in theoretical computing/math books are all fictional things, 
> of course.

“Of course”?



> 
> All actual computers are made of matter.

No doubt that this is true, but that is not an argument that such matter are 
not (stable) appearances.

But as I try to explain here from times to times, the arithmetical reality 
explains where and why such stable appearances appears. If I can say.

You just seem to be a believer in a Primary Matter, but I have never seen one 
evidence for it. Initially, “mathematician” were not believer in a mathematical 
reality, but a skeptic toward the idea that matter is the primitive reality we 
have to assume. But with mechanism, we don’t have to assume matter, it explains 
matter, and unlike physicalism, it explains how consciousness remains 
associated to the appearances of matter.

You seem to beg the question by deciding that math objects are fiction and 
physics object is not.

No problem, but then digital mechanism is false. But there are no evidences, it 
is just an old habit since the closure of Plato academy;

Bruno




> 
> (Technically the fictional ones are too: Printed ink glyphs on paper.)
> 
>  -pt
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 13:54, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>  
> > We may even have robots that can sit and talk with us about current events, 
> > know everything in Wikipedia, etc. How "creative" they will be is an open 
> > question. 
> 
> I don't think it's a open question at all. I can state without reservation 
> that regardless of how intelligent computers become they will never be 
> creative because the word "creative" now means whatever computers aren't good 
> at. Yet. And thus due to Moore's Law and improved programing the meaning of 
> the word constantly changes. What was creative yesterday isn't creative today.
> 
> > On mathematics: Of course mathematics changes, because it is a type of 
> > language, and languages change.
> 
> If mathematics is just a language (as I think it is)


Consider arithmetic. The language are the well formed expressions, using the 
logical symbols, and the no logical symboles like s, +, *, and “0”.

But a theory is concerned with proofs (syntactical) and semantics (a reality 
supposed to make the proposition true). After Gödel we know that *all* 
effective theories (effective = the proof are mechanically checkable) miss the 
arithmetical standard reality. A theory is a set of formal proposition that we 
believe true in that standard model/reality. It never captures the whole 
reality, which provably extends any theory. Even ZF is incomplete with respect 
to the arithmetical reality.





> then it can not be used to construct things, in particular it can't, by 
> itself without the use of matter, construct a Turing Machine as Bruno claims 
> it can. 

But why would that be needed. You assume some primary matter, but there are no 
evidence for this.





> English is also a language but an English word has no meaning without an 
> English speaker with a physical brain to hear it.

… and without some reality to give sense to the proposition. But the 
arithmetical reality contains, a bit like a bloc-universe, all the 
computations. Once you associated consciousness to computations, a material 
primary universe seems to add unnecessary complexity. The arithmetical reality 
cannot build matter, but contains all dreams/experience of the material. 

Bruno


> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.