Re: Why AI is impossible

On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote: On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: Are there any explicitly known arithmetic propositions which must be true or false under Peanao's axioms, but which are known to be unprovable? If we const

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve t

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: > But there's also a different meaning of undecidable: a statement that can > be added as an axiom or it's negation can be added as an axiom > Axioms are important, you've got to be very careful with them! If you go around adding axioms at the dro

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm. And unless you prove t

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm. And unless you prove t

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 16 Aug 2012, at 21:32, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm. And unless you prove that that particular algorithm is undecidab

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm. And unless you prove that that

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote: If it's undecidable that means its either false or true but contains no proof, that is to say it's truth can't be demonstrated in a finite number of steps. And Turing proved that there are a infinite number of undecidable statements that you can not know

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve > the halting problem for a particular algorithm. And unless you prove that that particular algorithm is undecidable > If it's undecidable that means its either fa

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:46, meekerdb wrote: On 8/16/2012 8:34 AM, William R. Buckley wrote: I used the term *omniscience* in a rather general way, as a substitute for the term *universal* though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective to the term *computational* rat

Re: Why AI is impossible

-list Time: 2012-08-15, 03:38:37 Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:02, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: You抳e turned things around. The implication is context to information, not information to context. And, I suggest you think very long and carefully about my

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/16/2012 8:34 AM, William R. Buckley wrote: I used the term **omniscience** in a rather general way, as a substitute for the term **universal** though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective to the term **computational** rather than the other way around, as might b

RE: Re: Why AI is impossible

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:12 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Why AI is impossible Hi Bruno Marchal The Bible teaches that God spends much of his time looking into men's hearts to see if love or evil rests there. Would this be part of your definition of omnisc

Re: Re: Why AI is impossible

ave to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 03:38:37 Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:02, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: You?e turned things

Re: Why AI is impossible

oglegroups.com [mailto:everything- > l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:09 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:22:21PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote: > >

RE: Why AI is impossible

25 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible 2012/8/15 John Clark On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: > Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience I don't dislike the term, in fact I think I'd rather enjoy be

RE: Why AI is impossible

Again, not any published cellular automaton. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:51 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On Wed

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012/8/15 John Clark > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley < > bill.buck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience >> > > I don't dislike the term, in fact I think I'd rather enjoy being > omniscient but unfortunately I'm not. > > > the Turing

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: > Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience > I don't dislike the term, in fact I think I'd rather enjoy being omniscient but unfortunately I'm not. > the Turing machine can compute all computable computations, > Yes, and thus

Re: Why AI is impossible

ightly safer than posting one's e-mail address directly to this list. > > Jason > > > >> wrb >> >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- >> > l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ru

Re: Why AI is impossible

t; From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- > > l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:09 AM > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible > > > > On Tue, Aug

RE: Why AI is impossible

wrb > -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- > l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:09 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible > >

Re: Re: Why AI is impossible

uot; - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 05:38:31 Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: >From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective univer

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:22:21PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote: > Dear Russell: > > When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not > its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice. > > wrb I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but do Langton loops count? http:

Re: Why AI is impossible

main idea, if you desire. Bruno wrb -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On T

Re: Why AI is impossible

@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:39 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley > wrote: > Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] Turing's en

Re: Why AI is impossible

rb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:39 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: From th

RE: Why AI is impossible

@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: I have done exactly as I challenged Russell. That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built yourself. Which implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have been a prior

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: I have done exactly as I challenged Russell. That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built yourself. Which implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have been a prior part of you which you didn't build. Bre

RE: Why AI is impossible

I have done exactly as I challenged Russell. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Tenneson Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:26 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible John Russell and

Re: Why AI is impossible

John Russell and Katharine Russell might not agree. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: > > Dear Russell: > > When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not > its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your a

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: Dear Russell: When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice. Every machine that built itself was not built by Russell. Brent -- You received this message because yo

RE: Why AI is impossible

Standish > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:11 PM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote: > > John: > > > > > > > > Regardless of your dislike for the

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote: > John: > > > > Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience versus universality, the > Turing machine > > can compute all computable computations, and this simply by virtue of its > construction. > > > > wrb John

RE: Why AI is impossible

no case of one to all others where decidability is satisfied. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:53 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On Tue

RE: Why AI is impossible

John Clark Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:39 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: > Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] Turing's entire reason for i

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Hmmm... well the halting problem is that there is no *general* algorithm > to decide wether or not a given program will stop Yes. > it doesn't state that there is no algorithm that can determine if a > particular program will stop or no

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012/8/14 John Clark > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley < > bill.buck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] >> > > Turing's entire reason for inventing what we now call a Turing Machine was > to prove that computational om

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: > Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] > Turing's entire reason for inventing what we now call a Turing Machine was to prove that computational omniscience is NOT possible. He rigorously proved that no Turing

RE: Why AI is impossible

thing-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: >From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe seems rather obvious. I don't think anything is obvious here. What do you mean by a s

Re: Why AI is impossible

On 14 Aug 2012, at 06:33, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The choice of the initial universal system does not matter. Of course it does matter epistemologically. If you choose a quantum computing system as initial system, the derivation of th

Re: Why AI is impossible

Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe seems rather obvious. I don't think anything is obvious here. What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are dreaming? What is your theo

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> William, >> >> On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: >> >> >> The physical universe is purely

Re: Why AI is impossible

William, I hope these might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/M&PI_15-MAI-91.pdf http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publ

RE: Why AI is impossible

Please, a few foundational references on COMP that I might follow the discussion on Google EverythingList. wrb -- 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 uns

RE: Why AI is impossible

012 6:09 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible William, On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: Roger: Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physi

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Roger wrote: > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi > > This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry. > > Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, > nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference. > > Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is sel

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Roger wrote: > Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, nonlife cannot do so. > And if Intelligence is defined as what ever a computer can't do (yet) then it's not surprising that as of this date Artificial Intelligence has not achieved its goal. If a hu

Re: Why AI is impossible

Hi Jason, On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: William, On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: The physical universe is purely subjective. That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the

Re: Why AI is impossible

Hi Roger, "Natural life" and "natural/biological intelligence", although in a very slow pace, have more than a bilion years of evolution. New forms of life and intelligence are just in its beginning, but in a very very high evolution speed due to a kind of men/machine/web symbiosis. Be patient...:

Re: Why AI is impossible

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > William, > > On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: > > > The physical universe is purely subjective. > > > That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the means > to derive physics from a theory of sub

Re: Why AI is impossible

William, On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: Roger: Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other part of the physical universe by which to obtai

Re: Why AI is impossible

Hear hear! It is the shared delusion of many first person content. On 8/12/2012 12:01 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: Roger: Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physical universe, he or she necessarily must use so

Re: Why AI is impossible

Hi Roger, We distinguish between computers as physical objects and computations which are not necessarily only those things that physical computer objects do. My definition of a computation is any transformation of information (which is defined as the difference between two things that ma

RE: Why AI is impossible

Roger: Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure. QED. The physical universe is p

Re: Why AI is impossible

"Life" is an ill defined phenomenological concept. Saibal Citeren Roger : Hi Evgenii Rudnyi This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry. Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference. Intelligence requires the ability to experie