Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence
Hi John Clark "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." Sorry, what is the point of this statement ? 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: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 12:42:01 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence On Tue, Sep 4, 2012? Roger Clough 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. ?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: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence
Hi John Clark God is real but cannot be found within spacetime because he is unextended. So scientific talk about God is meaningless. Actually, all science talk is meaningless if it is scientific. 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: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 12:42:01 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence On Tue, Sep 4, 2012? Roger Clough 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. ?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: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence
Yes, and that other thing is the interpreter and constructor which is directed by the information represented by the nucleotide sequence that is any particular DNA molecule. Again, the genome is not inside the DNA; it is represented by the DNA. The interpreter and constructor are the cell. Information in context. Just as von Neumann envisioned. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:53 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence Hi William R. Buckley A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself. 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: William R. Buckley <mailto:bill.buck...@gmail.com> Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Time: 2012-08-30, 12:42:17 Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence 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 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 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 "x"x"", then D"D" gives "D"D"". D"D" 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
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence
Hi William R. Buckley
A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.
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: 2012-08-30, 12:42:17
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot
exhibitintelligence
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, 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 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 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 "x"x"", then D"D"
gives "D"D"". D"D" 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.
Noth
