Le 16-févr.-06, à 21:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I should have said that Bp p seems wrong, not that it's too simple.
I was trying to say that it seems wrong to say that Bp p gets us
further than Bp, i.e. provability + truth is more than provability.
In order for Bp p Bp, it seems
Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a machine is.
Actually I was just saying that no machine can *fully* grasp *all
aspect* of machine. But machines can know what machines are. Only, if a
machine M1 is more complex than M2, M2
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit
:
As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a
machine is.
Actually I was just saying that no machine can
*fully* grasp *all
aspect* of machine. But machines can know what
machines
Hi John,
Le 16-févr.-06, à 16:21, John M wrote:
since when do we think 'beweisbar' (provable) anything
within the domain of our knowledge-base which may have
connotations beyond it (into the unlimited)? Since
when do we want to speak about Truth in a general
sense? Our 'truth'? Our percept of
Responses interspersed below.
Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a machine is.
Bruno:
Actually I was just saying that no machine can *fully* grasp *all
aspect* of machine. But machines can know what machines are. Only, if a
Bruno:
That is why I propose simple definitions. Reasoning =
provability = Bp = Beweisbar(p) cf Godel 1931. Soul =
first person = provability-and-truth = Bp p =
third Plotinus' hypostase. This can look as an oversimplification
but the gap between truth and provability (incarnated in the
corona
20:18:35 -0800
Subject: Re: Artificial Philosophizing
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
A and b above both make sense to me.
Jef and Brent say that we are machines
who (that?) philosophize
Le 10-févr.-06, à 00:18, Russell Standish a écrit :
This is one point where I depart from your metaphysics. Traditional
aristotelianism asserts existence of matter, and that psyche emerges
from that.
OK. (except that many aristotelian, like Stephen, are dualist, but most
of their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Le 08-févr.-06, à 22:55, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:17:05PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount of
information...
so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite,
hence
digitalisable
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A UD can generate the set of all random strings, but it still needs to
select a single string to be equivalent to a Geiger counter.
AFAIK,
this is impossible for a Turing machine ...
Not if the UD (which is a turing machine)
Hi Russel,
Interleaving some comments...
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Artificial Philosophizing
On Thu
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 08:49:24PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*
@Article{Seznec-Sendrier03,
author = {Andr\'e Seznec and Nicolas Sendrier},
title = {{HAVEGE}: A user-level software heuristic for generating
empirically strong random numbers},
journal = {{ACM} Transactions on
Best of all - try a washing machine. Get all your wife's stockings
and throw them loosely into the washing machine and switch it on for
one cycle. When you see the state of entanglement of everything at
the end you will understand genuine randomness.
Kim Jones
On 10/02/2006, at 10:18
Jef Allbright wrote:
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
A and b above both make sense to me.
Jef and Brent say that we are machines
who (that?) philosophize.
I'll agree that was implied
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:34:22PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
To the list,
I don't understand how some of you accept the term we are machine and not
we are digitalisable at some level and hence emulable at that level, could
someone enlight me on this apparent contradiction ?
Le 08-févr.-06, à 10:36, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Jef Allbright wrote:
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
A and b above both make sense to me.
Jef and Brent say that we are machines
who (that?)
Le 06-févr.-06, à 22:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
To be sure, and clear, note that I have never said I am a machine,
nor man is a machine.
All what I say is that: IF I am a machine THEN physics emerges
Le Mercredi 8 Février 2006 10:41, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:34:22PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
To the list,
I don't understand how some of you accept the term we are machine and
not we are digitalisable at some level and hence emulable at that
level, could
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:17:05PM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi,
we (as observer) perceive at any given time a finite amount of information...
so what you could know (still as an observer of a system) is finite, hence
digitalisable at the level of information that you could know
Georges wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Hi Tom,
Le Mardi 7 Février 2006 18:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
If we truly are machines, then by definition we should be able to (in
theory) figure out the list of instructions that we follow. But wouldn't
this be grasping all aspects of ourselves? If not, then what part of
ourselves
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
A and b above both make sense to me.
Jef and Brent say that we are machines
who (that?) philosophize.
I'll agree that was implied by my statement.
I
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
[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.
25 matches
Mail list logo
