Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 construct a Godel sentence, which corresponds  
to This sentence is unprovable., in Godel encoding it must be an  
arithmetic proposition.  I'm just curious as to what such an  
arithmetic proposition looks like.



I forgot to mentioned also the famous Goodstein sequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein_theorem

Goodstein sequences are sequences of numbers which always converge  
to zero, but PA cannot prove this, although it can be proved in  
second order arithmetic.


I'd say they are not part of arithmetic, since they are generated by  
substituting one number for another - not an arithmetic operation.


Come on. Arithmetic is Turing universal. You can program substitution  
with only E, s, 0, + and *.
It is long and tedious, and not simple prove, but has been done by  
Matiyasevich (or just Gödel if you add the symbol A, eliminated by  
Davis, Robinson and Matiyasevich.





So I find it hard to see Goodstein sequences terminate in zero. as  
a proposition of arithmetic or number theory.


It is.




It seems that they depend on positional notation.


You can program positional notations with the arithmetical little  
language sketched above. If you want I can give more detail, but it is  
obviously rather technical, and very long. You really need the  
fundamental theorem of arithmetic, the chinese rest lemma,  the Gödel  
beta function, etc. I can give a shorter sketchy description, as I  
intent to do on the FOAR list soon or later. I can sent the relevant  
post here on that occasion.


Bruno






You can google also on hercule hydra undecidable to find a game,  
which has a winning strategy, but again this is not provable in PA.


But machine theologians are not so much interested in those  
extensional undecidable sentences (in PA), as they embrace the  
intensional interpretation of the undecidable sentence, like  
CON(t), (t).


Bruno





Brent



If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable,  
we know that such statements exist, a infinite number of them,  
but we don't know what they are. A billion years from now,  
whatever hyper intelligent entities we will have evolved into  
will still be deep in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a  
proof that Goldbach is correct and still be grinding away at  
numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove it  
wrong.


  John 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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Aug 2012, at 21:32, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are  
undecidable.



The halting problem is insolvable. This is an absolute notion, with  
Church's thesis.
Undecidability is relative to the choice of a theory, but once rich  
enough, they all have undecidable sentences. But it is not the same  
from one theory to another.


Bruno






 then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could  
decide on the halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might  
not be, and if there isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will  
keep looking for one forever and you will keep failing forever.


If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if  
its still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop  
and maybe it will not, you need to keep watching and you might need  
to keep watching forever.


 It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm

Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to  
Godel some statements are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach  
Conjecture is one of these (and if its not there are a infinite  
number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true so  
we'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not the  
sum of  primes greater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means we'll  
never find a proof to show it's correct. For a few years after Godel  
made his discovery it was hoped that we could at least identify  
statements that were either false or true but had no proof. If we  
could do that then we would know we were wasting our time looking  
for a proof and we could move on to other things, but in 1935 Turing  
proved that sometimes even that was impossible.


If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we  
know that such statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we  
don't know what they are. A billion years from now, whatever hyper  
intelligent entities we will have evolved into will still be deep in  
thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is  
correct and still be grinding away at numbers looking,  
unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove it wrong.


  John 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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


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  
allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are  
undecidable.


 then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could  
decide on the halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might  
not be, and if there isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will  
keep looking for one forever and you will keep failing forever.


If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if  
its still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually  
stop and maybe it will not, you need to keep watching and you might  
need to keep watching forever.


 It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm

Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to  
Godel some statements are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach  
Conjecture is one of these (and if its not there are a infinite  
number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true so  
we'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not  
the sum of  primes greater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means  
we'll never find a proof to  show it's correct. For a few  
years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could at  
least identify statements that were either false or true but had no  
proof. If we could do that then we would know we were wasting our  
time looking for a proof and we could move on to other things, but  
in 1935 Turing proved that sometimes even that was impossible.


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 construct a Godel sentence, which corresponds to  
This sentence is unprovable., in Godel encoding it must be an  
arithmetic proposition.  I'm just curious as to what such an  
arithmetic proposition looks like.


Some problem like that have been studied by Paris and Harrington. A  
famous problem by Ramsey has lead to undecidability in Peano  
Arithmetic. This is explained notably in the following book:

http://www.ams.org/bookstore?fn=20arg1=whatsnewikey=CBMS-45
You can google on Ramsey undecidable Peano, for more on this.

Bruno




Brent



If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we  
know that such statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we  
don't know what they are. A billion years from now, whatever hyper  
intelligent entities we will have evolved into will still be deep  
in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is  
correct and still be grinding away at numbers looking,  
unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove it wrong.


  John 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- 
l...@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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


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  
allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are  
undecidable.


 then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could  
decide on the halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might  
not be, and if there isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will  
keep looking for one forever and you will keep failing forever.


If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if  
its still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually  
stop and maybe it will not, you need to keep watching and you might  
need to keep watching forever.


 It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm

Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to  
Godel some statements are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach  
Conjecture is one of these (and if its not there are a infinite  
number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true so  
we'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not  
the sum of  primes greater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means  
we'll never find a proof to  show it's correct. For a few  
years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could at  
least identify statements that were either false or true but had no  
proof. If we could do that then we would know we were wasting our  
time looking for a proof and we could move on to other things, but  
in 1935 Turing proved that sometimes even that was impossible.


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 construct a Godel sentence, which corresponds to  
This sentence is unprovable., in Godel encoding it must be an  
arithmetic proposition.  I'm just curious as to what such an  
arithmetic proposition looks like.



I forgot to mentioned also the famous Goodstein sequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein_theorem

Goodstein sequences are sequences of numbers which always converge to  
zero, but PA cannot prove this, although it can be proved in second  
order arithmetic.


You can google also on hercule hydra undecidable to find a game,  
which has a winning strategy, but again this is not provable in PA.


But machine theologians are not so much interested in those  
extensional undecidable sentences (in PA), as they embrace the  
intensional interpretation of the undecidable sentence, like CON(t),  
(t).


Bruno





Brent



If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we  
know that such statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we  
don't know what they are. A billion years from now, whatever hyper  
intelligent entities we will have evolved into will still be deep  
in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is  
correct and still be grinding away at numbers looking,  
unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove it wrong.


  John 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- 
l...@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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-17 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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 drop of a hat it's a waste of time to prove
anything because even if you are successful all you'll know is that there
is a proof in a crappy logical system, you still will have no idea if it's
true or not. For example, suppose you added the Goldbach Conjecture as a
axiom and then a computer found a even integer greater than 4 that is not
the sum of  primes greater than 2, it would be a disaster, everything
you've proved under that system would be nonsense. Axioms are supposed to
be simple and self evidently true and Goldbach is not.

 e.g. the continuum hypothesis within ZFC.


In 1940 Kurt Godel himself proved that if you add the continuum hypothesis
to standard Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory you will get no contradictions.
Then in 1962 Paul Cohen proved that if you add the NEGATION of the
Continuum Hypothesis to standard set theory you won't get contradictions
either. Together Godel and Cohen proved that the ability to come up with a
proof of the Continuum Hypothesis depends on the version of set theory
used.  We were lucky with the Continuum Hypothesis, we know it's unprovable
under Zermelo-Fraenkel so nobody spins their wheels trying to prove or
disprove it, but not all unprovable statements are like that, Turing tells
us that there are a infinite number of propositions that are unprovable
that we can never know are unprovable.

 Are there any explicitly known arithmetic propositions which must be true
 or false under Peanao's axioms, but which are known to be unprovable?


I think you mean propositions about numbers that are true but cannot be
shown to be true with Peano, if they are true or false under Peanao (and
not true AND false!) then they are not unprovable. We know from Godel there
must be a infinite number of such statements and we know from Turing there
is no surefire way of detecting them all, and that's what makes them so
dangerous, they are a endless time sink. And in fact although they are
infinite in number as far as I know nobody has been able to point to a
single one. So maybe trying to prove or disprove Goldbach is utterly
pointless and maybe it is not, there is no way to know.

  John 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.



Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-17 Thread meekerdb

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 allco...@gmail.com 
mailto:allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are 
undecidable.


 then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could decide on 
the
halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might not be, and if 
there isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will keep looking for one forever and 
you will keep failing forever.


If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its 
still
going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe it 
will
not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching 
forever.


 It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm


Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to Godel some statements 
are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach Conjecture is one of these (and if its not 
there are a infinite number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true so 
we'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of  primes 
greater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means we'll never find a proof to show it's 
correct. For a few years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could at 
least identify statements that were either false or true but had no proof. If we could 
do that then we would know we were wasting our time looking for a proof and we could 
move on to other things, but in 1935 Turing proved that sometimes even that was 
impossible.


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 construct a Godel 
sentence, which corresponds to This sentence is unprovable., in Godel encoding it 
must be an arithmetic proposition.  I'm just curious as to what such an arithmetic 
proposition looks like.



I forgot to mentioned also the famous Goodstein sequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein_theorem

Goodstein sequences are sequences of numbers which always converge to zero, but PA 
cannot prove this, although it can be proved in second order arithmetic.


I'd say they are not part of arithmetic, since they are generated by substituting one 
number for another - not an arithmetic operation.  So I find it hard to see Goodstein 
sequences terminate in zero. as a proposition of arithmetic or number theory.  It seems 
that they depend on positional notation.


Brent



You can google also on hercule hydra undecidable to find a game, which has a winning 
strategy, but again this is not provable in PA.


But machine theologians are not so much interested in those extensional undecidable 
sentences (in PA), as they embrace the intensional interpretation of the undecidable 
sentence, like CON(t), (t).


Bruno





Brent



If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we know that such 
statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we don't know what they are. A 
billion years from now, whatever hyper intelligent entities we will have evolved into 
will still be deep in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is 
correct and still be grinding away at numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a 
counterexample to prove it wrong.


  John 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 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



--
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 

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Aug 2012, at 16:59, Jason Resch wrote:


These are quite interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YPYYvZOGlU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Q5l47jTy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpv=PBXO_6Jn1fs

Are these not forms of life?



I would say yes. Quite cute :)

Note that such automata, or more complex one actually, but behaving in  
the same way, can be derived algorithmically, from phi_x() = x, itself  
solvable with the Dx = xx trick. It is the key of all notions self  
(self-reproduction, self-reference, dreams, G, G*, etc.).


Bruno





Jason

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

No, Langton's loops do not count.  Nor do any published
cellular automaton.


William,

Do these count:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor 
 ?



Read these papers:

Computational Ontogeny, already published in Biological Theory

and

Constructor Ontogeny, accepted for full presentation at
ECTA-2012.

Send your email address and I will forward these papers.


I am interested in seeing these papers.  If you don't use e-mail to  
interact with this list, you can go to the google group's page to  
get any poster's e-mail address.  It has some anti-spam protection  
which is slightly 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 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:
  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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops

 Cheers

 --

  
---

 -
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
  
---

 -

 --
 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 
.





--
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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread Roger
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 omniscience ?


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have 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 around.  The implication is context to information, not 
information to context.

And, I suggest you think very long and carefully about my statement regarding 
the computational
omniscience of the Turing machine.  Yes, you may call it universality but that 
word is in fact too
strong; omniscience is more accurate.


Omniscience concerns beliefs or knowledge, mainly propositions. This can be 
proved to be always incomplete for machine (and plausibly humans), never 
omni. Universality concerns functions, or computations. By a sort of miracle 
(Church's thesis) this can be universal.


Put differently: procedural 'knowledge' can be universal. Assertive knowledge 
is always incomplete.


Bruno









Also, read Jesper Hoffmeyer? book Biosemiotics.

wrb

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 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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?





Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient

I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with omniscience, 
even restricted to number relations. Computational universality entails the 
impossibility of omniscience.





solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations. 

?





Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.

I agree with this. I would say that information is really context selection.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
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.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread William R. Buckley
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 be expected when the phrase is given 
in the form of 

*computational omniscience*.  I like to play with language, and English has a 
rather free form.

 

Omniscience has a sense of universality to it, and it is not solely connected 
to deity; there is also 

notion of realm, and mathematics is such.  Hence, omniscience over computation 
(computational 

omniscience) represents not so much all knowing as all computable, and 
remember, all that is 

computable is so computable upon Turing machine as it might be anywhere else.

 

The Turing machine, simply by its construction, computes in this universal 
fashion, and no other 

means of computing provides answers beyond those provided by Turing machine.  
Hence, the 

Turing machine is not only universally competent as a computer, it also is 
computationally 

omniscient.

 

wrb

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger 
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 omniscience ?

 

 

Roger ,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/16/2012 

Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

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 statement regarding 
the computational

omniscience of the Turing machine.  Yes, you may call it universality but that 
word is in fact too

strong; omniscience is more accurate.

 

Omniscience concerns beliefs or knowledge, mainly propositions. This can be 
proved to be always incomplete for machine (and plausibly humans), never 
omni. Universality concerns functions, or computations. By a sort of miracle 
(Church's thesis) this can be universal.

 

Put differently: procedural 'knowledge' can be universal. Assertive knowledge 
is always incomplete.

 

Bruno

 

 

 





Also, read Jesper Hoffmeyer抯 book Biosemiotics.

wrb

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 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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?






Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient

I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with omniscience, 
even restricted to number relations. Computational universality entails the 
impossibility of omniscience.






solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly

be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,

Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable

computations. 

?






Somehow, where information is concerned, context

is king.

I agree with this. I would say that information is really context selection.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
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

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread meekerdb

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 be expected when the phrase is given in the 
form of


**computational omniscience**.  I like to play with language, and English has a rather 
free form.


Omniscience has a sense of universality to it, and it is not solely connected to deity; 
there is also


notion of realm, and mathematics is such.  Hence, omniscience over computation 
(computational


omniscience) represents not so much all knowing as all computable, and remember, all 
that is


computable is so computable upon Turing machine as it might be anywhere else.

The Turing machine, simply by its construction, computes in this universal fashion, and 
no other


means of computing provides answers beyond those provided by Turing machine.  
Hence, the

Turing machine is not only universally competent as a computer, it also is 
computationally

omniscient.



I should think that would be called computational omnipotence.

Brent

--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:11, Roger wrote:


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 omniscience ?


I don't believe in any form of ommiscience. You might read a book by  
Grimm on the subject:


http://www.amazon.com/The-Incomplete-Universe-Totality-Knowledge/dp/0262071347

The God of comp is not omniscient, and can be see as being non  
potent at all, or omnipotent, according to the definition.


The bible teaches us that PI = 3, also. The bible can be inspiring,  
but lacks some rigor.


Bruno




Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have 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 statement  
regarding the computational
omniscience of the Turing machine.  Yes, you may call it  
universality but that word is in fact too

strong; omniscience is more accurate.


Omniscience concerns beliefs or knowledge, mainly propositions. This  
can be proved to be always incomplete for machine (and plausibly  
humans), never omni. Universality concerns functions, or  
computations. By a sort of miracle (Church's thesis) this can be  
universal.


Put differently: procedural 'knowledge' can be universal. Assertive  
knowledge is always incomplete.


Bruno





Also, read Jesper Hoffmeyer抯 book Biosemiotics.
wrb
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 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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?



Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient
I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with  
omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational  
universality entails the impossibility of omniscience.



solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.
?


Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.
I agree with this. I would say that information is really context  
selection.

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@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- 
l...@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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


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*


rather than the other way around, as might be expected when the  
phrase is given in the form of


*computational omniscience*.  I like to play with language, and  
English has a rather free form.




Omniscience has a sense of universality to it, and it is not solely  
connected to deity; there is also


notion of realm, and mathematics is such.  Hence, omniscience over  
computation (computational


omniscience) represents not so much all knowing as all computable,  
and remember, all that is


computable is so computable upon Turing machine as it might be  
anywhere else.




The Turing machine, simply by its construction, computes in this  
universal fashion, and no other


means of computing provides answers beyond those provided by Turing  
machine.  Hence, the


Turing machine is not only universally competent as a computer, it  
also is computationally


omniscient.



I should think that would be called computational omnipotence.


I agree. that would be less misleading. Computational omniscience can  
too much easily be intepreted as omniscience about computation, but no  
machine can be omniscient on computations as the halting problem  
already illustrates.


But science is concerns with proposition, and computability is concern  
with function and program. So William's vocabulary can misled people.  
In the interdisciplinary field, my methodology is to use the most  
frequently used terms by the people working in the field. When two  
fields use a common term with different interpretations, like the term  
model in physics and logics, then a case for a new word can be  
proposed, but its meaning needs to be constantly reminded to the  
different experts, in that case.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are undecidable.


  then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could decide on
 the halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might not be,
and if there isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will keep looking for
one forever and you will keep failing forever.

If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its
 still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe
 it will not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching
 forever.


  It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm


Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to Godel some
statements are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach Conjecture is one of
these (and if its not there are a infinite number of similar statements
that are) it means that it's true so we'll never find a every even integer
greater than 4 that is not the sum of  primes greater than 2 to prove it
wrong, and it means we'll never find a proof to show it's correct. For a
few years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could at
least identify statements that were either false or true but had no proof.
If we could do that then we would know we were wasting our time looking for
a proof and we could move on to other things, but in 1935 Turing proved
that sometimes even that was impossible.

If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we know
that such statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we don't know
what they are. A billion years from now, whatever hyper intelligent
entities we will have evolved into will still be deep in thought looking,
unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is correct and still be grinding
away at numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove it
wrong.

  John 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.



Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread meekerdb

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 are 
undecidable.


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, e.g. the continuum hypothesiswithin ZFC.


Brent

--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-16 Thread meekerdb

On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 
mailto:allco...@gmail.com 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 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 are 
undecidable.


 then it is still possible to find another algorithm that could decide on 
the
halting of that algorithm.


There might be such a algorithm for a given problem or there might not be, and if there 
isn't you can't know there isn't  so you will keep looking for one forever and you will 
keep failing forever.


If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its 
still
going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe it 
will
not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching 
forever.


 It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm


Yes, but it is also true for *a lot* of algorithms. According to Godel some statements 
are true but un-provable, if The Goldbach Conjecture is one of these (and if its not 
there are a infinite number of similar statements that are) it means that it's true so 
we'll never find a every even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of  primes 
greater than 2 to prove it wrong, and it means we'll never find a proof to show it's 
correct. For a few years after Godel made his discovery it was hoped that we could at 
least identify statements that were either false or true but had no proof. If we could 
do that then we would know we were wasting our time looking for a proof and we could 
move on to other things, but in 1935 Turing proved that sometimes even that was impossible.


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 construct a Godel sentence, 
which corresponds to This sentence is unprovable., in Godel encoding it must be an 
arithmetic proposition.  I'm just curious as to what such an arithmetic proposition looks 
like.


Brent



If Goldbach is un-provable we will never know it's un-provable, we know that such 
statements exist, a infinite number of them, but we don't know what they are. A billion 
years from now, whatever hyper intelligent entities we will have evolved into will still 
be deep in thought looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that Goldbach is correct and 
still be grinding away at numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to prove 
it wrong.


  John 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

William,

On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:02, William R. Buckley wrote:


Bruno:

You’ve turned things around.  The implication is context to  
information, not information to context.


And, I suggest you think very long and carefully about my statement  
regarding the computational
omniscience of the Turing machine.  Yes, you may call it  
universality but that word is in fact too

strong; omniscience is more accurate.


Omniscience concerns beliefs or knowledge, mainly propositions. This  
can be proved to be always incomplete for machine (and plausibly  
humans), never omni. Universality concerns functions, or  
computations. By a sort of miracle (Church's thesis) this can be  
universal.


Put differently: procedural 'knowledge' can be universal. Assertive  
knowledge is always incomplete.


Bruno






Also, read Jesper Hoffmeyer’s book Biosemiotics.

wrb

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 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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?





Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient

I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with  
omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational  
universality entails the impossibility of omniscience.





solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.

?




Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.

I agree with this. I would say that information is really context  
selection.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Aug 2012, at 20:16, 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.




It is deeper than that. It is in virtue of the fact that the set of  
computable functions, unlike all other sets in math, is closed for the  
diagonalization, and the price for this is incompleteness. It is not  
trivial, and makes computational universality rather exceptional and  
unexpected. The discovery of the universal machine is a very big  
discovery, of the type: it changes everything we knew. I think.
For beliefs, knowledge, proofs, definability, etc. This never happens,  
and the corresponding formal systems can always been extended.


Bruno








wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@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 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 omniscience is NOT possible.  
He rigorously proved that no Turing Machine, that is to say no  
computer, can determine in advance if any given computer program  
will eventually stop.


For example, it would be very easy to write a program to look for  
the first even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of two  
prime numbers and then stop. But will the machine ever stop? The  
Turing Machine doesn't know, I don't know, you don't know, nobody  
knows. Maybe it will stop in the next  5 seconds, maybe it will stop  
in 5 billion years, maybe it will never stop. If you want to know  
what the machine will do you just have to watch it and see, and even  
the machine doesn't know what it will do until it does it.


  John 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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Aug 2012, at 04:22, 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.


See my paper planaria, amoeba and dreaming machine (in the  
publication part in my url).


Reproduction regeneration and embryogenesis are easily solved through  
a theorem due to Kleene in theoretical computer science. They have all  
be implemented, so it is also practical computer science.

As I said: the notion of self is where computer science is at its best.

I can sketch the 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 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 is right - omniscience is a different concept to
universality. For the sake of clearer conversation, it is better to
keep that in mind, rather than arbitrarily redefining words Humpty
Dumpty like.

Of course, if there is no accepted definition for a concept, it is OK
to propose another one. But please restrict it to concepts that are
logically sound, and be prepared to drop your own definition if a
better one comes along.

Cheers

--

---
-
Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
---
-

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@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 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Russell Standish
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal 

This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to 
speak of the world and mind 
as objects.  But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and 
mind as we live them,
not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds.

It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in. 

Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating it.


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- 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 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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?





Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient


I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with omniscience, 
even restricted to number relations. Computational universality entails the 
impossibility of omniscience.






solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.  


?






Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.


I agree with this. I would say that information is really context selection.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread William R. Buckley
No, Langton's loops do not count.  Nor do any published 
cellular automaton.

Read these papers:

Computational Ontogeny, already published in Biological Theory

and 

Constructor Ontogeny, accepted for full presentation at
ECTA-2012.

Send your email address and I will forward these papers.

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
 
 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops
 
 Cheers
 
 --
 
 ---
 -
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 ---
 -
 
 --
 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

 No, Langton's loops do not count.  Nor do any published
 cellular automaton.


William,

Do these count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor ?



 Read these papers:

 Computational Ontogeny, already published in Biological Theory

 and

 Constructor Ontogeny, accepted for full presentation at
 ECTA-2012.


Send your email address and I will forward these papers.


I am interested in seeing these papers.  If you don't use e-mail to
interact with this list, you can go to the google group's page to get any
poster's e-mail address.  It has some anti-spam protection which is
slightly 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 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:
   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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops
 
  Cheers
 
  --
 
  ---
  -
  Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
  Principal, High Performance Coders
  Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
  ---
  -
 
  --
  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.



-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Jason Resch
These are quite interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YPYYvZOGlU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Q5l47jTy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpv=PBXO_6Jn1fs

Are these not forms of life?

Jason

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley 
 bill.buck...@gmail.com wrote:

 No, Langton's loops do not count.  Nor do any published
 cellular automaton.


 William,

 Do these count:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor ?



 Read these papers:

 Computational Ontogeny, already published in Biological Theory

 and

 Constructor Ontogeny, accepted for full presentation at
 ECTA-2012.


 Send your email address and I will forward these papers.


 I am interested in seeing these papers.  If you don't use e-mail to
 interact with this list, you can go to the google group's page to get any
 poster's e-mail address.  It has some anti-spam protection which is
 slightly 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 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:
   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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops
 
  Cheers
 
  --
 
  ---
  -
  Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
  Principal, High Performance Coders
  Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
  ---
  -
 
  --
  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.




-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 Turing proved that in general determining if a computer
program will ever stop is not computable; all you can do is watch it and
see what it does. If you see it stop then obviously you know that it
stopped but if its still going then you know nothing, maybe it will
eventually stop and maybe it will not, you need to keep watching and you
might need to keep watching forever.

  John 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.



Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

 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 machine can compute all computable computations,


 Yes, and thus Turing proved that in general determining if a computer
 program will ever stop is not computable;

  all you can do is watch it and see what it does.


No, all you can know is that no *general* algorithm (as you pointed out)
can solve that. And 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, then it
is still possible to find another algorithm that could decide on the
halting of that algorithm.


 If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its
 still going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe
 it will not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching
 forever.


It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm

Quentin



   John 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread William R. Buckley
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, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
wrote:

No, Langton's loops do not count.  Nor do any published
cellular automaton.

 

William,

 

Do these count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor ?

 

 

Read these papers:

Computational Ontogeny, already published in Biological Theory

and

Constructor Ontogeny, accepted for full presentation at
ECTA-2012.
 

Send your email address and I will forward these papers.

 

 

I am interested in seeing these papers.  If you don't use e-mail to interact
with this list, you can go to the google group's page to get any poster's
e-mail address.  It has some anti-spam protection which is slightly 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 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:
  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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops

 Cheers

 --

 ---
 -
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 ---
 -

 --
 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
mailto:list%2bunsubscr...@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
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-15 Thread William R. Buckley
Let's not ignore the most important point.

 

The machine has Turing closure solely due to the details of its
construction.

 

wrb

 

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible

 

 

2012/8/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

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 machine can compute all computable computations, 


Yes, and thus Turing proved that in general determining if a computer
program will ever stop is not computable;

all you can do is watch it and see what it does.


No, all you can know is that no *general* algorithm (as you pointed out) can
solve that. And 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, then it is still
possible to find another algorithm that could decide on the halting of that
algorithm.
 

If you see it stop then obviously you know that it stopped but if its still
going then you know nothing, maybe it will eventually stop and maybe it will
not, you need to keep watching and you might need to keep watching forever.


It's obviously not true for *a lot* of algorithm

Quentin
 


  John 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
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

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 theory of dream? What is your theory of mind?





Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient


I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with  
omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational  
universality entails the impossibility of omniscience.





solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable
computations.


?




Somehow, where information is concerned, context
is king.


I agree with this. I would say that information is really context  
selection.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Aug 2012, at 06:33, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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 the physical  
laws will be confusing, and you will have an hard time to convince  
people that you have derived the quantum from comp, as you will have  
seemed to introduce it at the start. So it is better to start with  
the less looking physical initial system, and it is preferable to  
start from one very well know, like number + addition and  
multiplication.


So, let us take it to fix the thing. The theory of everything is  
then given by the minimal number of axioms we need to recover Turing  
universality.


Amazingly enough the two following axioms are already enough, where  
the variable are quantified universally. I assume also some equality  
rules, but not logic!


x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

x * 0 = 0
x*s(y) = (x *y) + x

This define already a realm in which all universal number exists,  
and all their behavior is accessible from that simple theory: it is  
sigma_1 complete, that is the arithmetical version of Turing- 
complete. Note that such a theory is very weak, it has no negation,  
and cannot prove that 0 ≠ 1, for example. Of course, it is  
consistent and can't prove that 0 = 1 either. yet it emulates a UD  
through the fact that all the numbers representing proofs can be  
proved to exist in that theory.


Now, in that realm, due to the first person indeterminacy, you are  
multiplied into infinity. More precisely, your actual relative  
computational state appears to be proved to exist relatively to  
basically all universal numbers (and some non universal numbers  
too), and this infinitely often.


So when you decide to do an experience of physics, dropping an  
apple, for example, the first person indeterminacy dictates that  
what you will  feel to be experienced is given by a statistic on all  
computations (provably existing in the theory above) defined with  
respect to all universal numbers.



Is every program given equal weight in this theory, or might  
programs that run more efficiently, longer, or appear more  
frequently (as embedded sub-programs) have greater weight in setting  
the probability of future first person extensions?


Only appear more frequently in the UD* can play a role, by the  
invariance of the probabilities for the first person indeterminacies.






Does the universal system have any bearing on the above?  For  
example, intuitively it seems to me that when considering two  
universal systems, say Java, and FORTRAN, that due to syntactical  
differences, different programs might appear more or less often or  
easily.


The UD in Java, and the UD in FORTRAN will generates all possible UDs.  
If one particular one win the measure game, one (or many) special  
universal systems will play bigger role than other, but that has to be  
proved starting from any initial UD. So your question depends on the  
points of view taken. Ontologically, the answer is no.  
Epistemologically, the answer is yes, but that has to be deduced from  
the ontology (and the definition of person, belief, knowledge,  
observation, etc.). The theoretical result is that quantum universal  
system wins (as proved by the fact that arithmetical observation leads  
to an arithmetical quantization), and this is confirmed,  
retrospectively, by the existence of the quantum features in Nature.







Perhaps all universal systems compete amongst each other, based not  
only on the frequency of their programs, but how easily that  
universal system is realized in some meta-system.


Only if that easiness entails a bigger measure. Then yes, and that is  
even quite plausible, if not empirically obvious for the high physical  
reality levels.


Keep in mind that if you are duplicated in virtual dreams in W and M,  
and that in W you are executed with a quantum efficient computer, and  
in M you are executed by monks playing inefficiently (but correctly)  
with pebbles, comp entails that *you* will not feel any difference, as  
you cannot be directly aware of the universal level which execute you  
at (or below) your substitution level.


Bruno




So if comp is correct, and if some physical law is correct (like  
'dropped apples fall'), it can only mean that the vast majority of  
computation going in your actual comp state compute a state of  
affair where you see the apple falling. If you want, the reason why  
apple fall is that it happens in the majority of your computational  
extensions, and this has to be verified in the space of all  
computations. Everett confirms this very weird self-multiplication  
(weird with respect to the idea that we are unique and are living in  
a unique reality). This translated the problem of why physical  
laws into a problem of statistics 

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

  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 Machine, that is to say no computer, can determine in
advance if any given computer program will eventually stop.

For example, it would be very easy to write a program to look for the first
even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers and
then stop. But will the machine ever stop? The Turing Machine doesn't know,
I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Maybe it will stop in the next
5 seconds, maybe it will stop in 5 billion years, maybe it will never stop.
If you want to know what the machine will do you just have to watch it and
see, and even the machine doesn't know what it will do until it does it.

  John 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.



Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/14 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

 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 omniscience is NOT possible. He rigorously
 proved that no Turing Machine, that is to say no computer, can determine in
 advance if any given computer program will eventually stop.

 For example, it would be very easy to write a program to look for the
 first even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers
 and then stop. But will the machine ever stop? The Turing Machine doesn't
 know, I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.


Hmmm... well the halting problem is that there is no *general* algorithm to
decide wether or not a given program will stop, it doesn't state that there
is no algorithm that can determine if a particular program will stop or not.

Quentin


 Maybe it will stop in the next  5 seconds, maybe it will stop in 5 billion
 years, maybe it will never stop. If you want to know what the machine will
 do you just have to watch it and see, and even the machine doesn't know
 what it will do until it does it.

   John 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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 not.


Obviously. It's easy to tell that some programs, like the program add 1 to
the number 2  17 times then stop will stop, but its not so easy for other
programs and the only way to know if the program will stop it to watch it
and see. And if the program never stops you can never know that because no
matter how many billions of years you've been watching it for all you know
it might stop in the next 5 seconds, or maybe the next 5 billion years, or
maybe never.

  John 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.



RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
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

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@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 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 omniscience is NOT possible. He rigorously
proved that no Turing Machine, that is to say no computer, can determine in
advance if any given computer program will eventually stop. 


For example, it would be very easy to write a program to look for the first
even number greater than 2 that is not the sum of two prime numbers and then
stop. But will the machine ever stop? The Turing Machine doesn't know, I
don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. Maybe it will stop in the next  5
seconds, maybe it will stop in 5 billion years, maybe it will never stop. If
you want to know what the machine will do you just have to watch it and see,
and even the machine doesn't know what it will do until it does it.

  John 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
I think the limitation is better expressed as,

 

Halting problem - no one arbitrary algorithm can decide whether or not
another arbitrary algorithm will halt.

 

There are some cases, typically one to one, or one to some small and well
defined set, where decidability is 

satisfied.  There is 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, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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 not.


Obviously. It's easy to tell that some programs, like the program add 1 to
the number 2  17 times then stop will stop, but its not so easy for other
programs and the only way to know if the program will stop it to watch it
and see. And if the program never stops you can never know that because no
matter how many billions of years you've been watching it for all you know
it might stop in the next 5 seconds, or maybe the next 5 billion years, or
maybe never.

  John 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Russell Standish
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 is right - omniscience is a different concept to
universality. For the sake of clearer conversation, it is better to
keep that in mind, rather than arbitrarily redefining words Humpty
Dumpty like.

Of course, if there is no accepted definition for a concept, it is OK
to propose another one. But please restrict it to concepts that are
logically sound, and be prepared to drop your own definition if a
better one comes along.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
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

 -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 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 is right - omniscience is a different concept to
 universality. For the sake of clearer conversation, it is better to
 keep that in mind, rather than arbitrarily redefining words Humpty
 Dumpty like.
 
 Of course, if there is no accepted definition for a concept, it is OK
 to propose another one. But please restrict it to concepts that are
 logically sound, and be prepared to drop your own definition if a
 better one comes along.
 
 Cheers
 
 --
 
 ---
 -
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 ---
 -
 
 --
 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb

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 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Brian Tenneson
John Russell and Katharine Russell might not agree.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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 advice.


 Every machine that built itself was not built by Russell.

 Brent

 --
 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
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 Katharine Russell might not agree.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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 advice.


Every machine that built itself was not built by Russell.  

Brent

-- 
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
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb

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.


Brent

--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
Ah, someone sharp enough to see the crux of the biscuit.

 

The machine has the interesting property that it can begin its behavior 

with very much less than one half of itself still not constructed, and yet 

it can with this small portion construct the remainder of its configuration.

 

Further, this configuration cannot self-replicate without having 100% of 

its configuration in the constructed state.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:58 PM
To: everything-list@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 part of you which you didn't build.

Brent

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

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 obtain that measure.

QED.


You are quick here.




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 subejectivity. With comp any  
first order logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws  
of physics and the laws of mind are not dependent of the choice of the  
initial universal system.


Bruno





wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Roger

Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Why AI is impossible

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 selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly  
experienced.

Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
because only living items can experience the world..


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to  
computers in AI ordescribing life


On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact  
999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is  
unintelligent.


 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a  
study of

 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife  
research

 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is  
better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole  
and

 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

--
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 
.


--
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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 subejectivity. With comp any first order
 logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws of physics and
 the laws of mind are not dependent of the choice of the initial universal
 system.



Bruno,

Does the universal system change the measure of different programs and
observers, or do programs that implement programs (such as the UDA) end up
making the initial choice of system of no consequence?

Jason

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Roberto Szabo
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...:)

Roberto Szabo,  roberto.sz...@gmail.com

2012/8/12 Roger rclo...@verizon.net

  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 selecting.
 So only life can have intelligence.

 Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

 Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
 only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
 Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
 because only living items can experience the world..


 Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
 8/12/2012

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
 *Subject:* Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers
 in AI ordescribing life

   On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
  On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
  On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
  The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
  life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
 
  The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
  artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
  intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
  is about AI.
 
 
  What does intelligence means in this context that life is
  unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
  Where there is more intelligence?
 
  Evgenii
 
  Dear Evgenii,
 
  A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
  question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
  to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
  then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.
 

 My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
 unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
 with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 --
 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.+everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+
 unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +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.


-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Jason,

On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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 subejectivity. With comp  
any first order logical theory of a universal system will do, and  
the laws of physics and the laws of mind are not dependent of the  
choice of the initial universal system.




Bruno,

Does the universal system change the measure of different programs  
and observers, or do programs that implement programs (such as the  
UDA) end up making the initial choice of system of no consequence?


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 the physical laws will be  
confusing, and you will have an hard time to convince people that you  
have derived the quantum from comp, as you will have seemed to  
introduce it at the start. So it is better to start with the less  
looking physical initial system, and it is preferable to start from  
one very well know, like number + addition and multiplication.


So, let us take it to fix the thing. The theory of everything is then  
given by the minimal number of axioms we need to recover Turing  
universality.


Amazingly enough the two following axioms are already enough, where  
the variable are quantified universally. I assume also some equality  
rules, but not logic!


x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

x * 0 = 0
x*s(y) = (x *y) + x

This define already a realm in which all universal number exists, and  
all their behavior is accessible from that simple theory: it is  
sigma_1 complete, that is the arithmetical version of Turing-complete.  
Note that such a theory is very weak, it has no negation, and cannot  
prove that 0 ≠ 1, for example. Of course, it is consistent and can't  
prove that 0 = 1 either. yet it emulates a UD through the fact that  
all the numbers representing proofs can be proved to exist in that  
theory.


Now, in that realm, due to the first person indeterminacy, you are  
multiplied into infinity. More precisely, your actual relative  
computational state appears to be proved to exist relatively to  
basically all universal numbers (and some non universal numbers too),  
and this infinitely often.


So when you decide to do an experience of physics, dropping an apple,  
for example, the first person indeterminacy dictates that what you  
will  feel to be experienced is given by a statistic on all  
computations (provably existing in the theory above) defined with  
respect to all universal numbers.


So if comp is correct, and if some physical law is correct (like  
'dropped apples fall'), it can only mean that the vast majority of  
computation going in your actual comp state compute a state of affair  
where you see the apple falling. If you want, the reason why apple  
fall is that it happens in the majority of your computational  
extensions, and this has to be verified in the space of all  
computations. Everett confirms this very weird self-multiplication  
(weird with respect to the idea that we are unique and are living in a  
unique reality). This translated the problem of why physical laws  
into a problem of statistics in computer science, or in number theory.


Now, instead of using the four axioms above, I could have started with  
the combinators, and use the two combinator axioms:


((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

This define exactly the same set of all computations, and the same  
statistical measure problem, and that is what I mean by saying that  
the initial axioms choice is indifferent as long as you start from  
something which define a UD, or all computations (that is: is Turing  
or sigma_1 complete).


Now, clearly, from the first person points of view, it does look like  
many universal system get relatively more important role. Some can be  
geographical, like the local chemical situation on earth (a very  
special universal system), or your parents, but the point is that  
their stability must be justified by the winning universal system  
emerging from the competition of all universal numbers going through  
your actual state. The apparent winner seems to be the quantum one,  
and it has already the shape of a universal system which manage to  
eliminate abnormal computations by a process of destructive  
interferences. But to solve the mind body problem we have to justify  
this destructive interference processes through the solution of the  
arithmetical or combinatorial measure problem.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net 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 human does it then its a wonderful example of
intelligence but if a computer does the exact same thing it has absolutely
nothing to do with intelligence. In 1960 solving complicated equations
required intelligence but not today, in 1980 beating a Chess Grandmaster
required intelligence but not today, in 1995 being a great research
Librarian required intelligence but not today, and in 2010 beating the two
best Jeopardy champions on planet Earth required intelligence but not
today.

For this reason I would humbly suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday
by the way) be turned into a international holiday called Image
Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on the
intelligence required to recognize images. It is important that this be
done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right
now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers
become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and
intelligence will no longer be required for image recognition.

So if we ever intend to salute the brainpower required for this skill it is
imperative we do it now while we still can.

   John 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.



Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net 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 selecting.
 So only life can have intelligence.

 Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

 Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
 only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
 Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
 because only living items can experience the world..

I could say that computers can experience their surroundings, and
therefore they can have subjectivity, and intelligence, and by your
definition even life. Or, the computer could say that you can't
experience your surroundings, and therefore you can't be intelligent
or by your definition alive.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread William R. Buckley
Bruno:

 

From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe 

seems rather obvious.

 

Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient 

solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly 

be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why, 

Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable 

computations.  Somehow, where information is concerned, context 

is king.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 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

physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other

part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.

 

QED.

 

You are quick here. 

 





 

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 subejectivity. With comp any first order
logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws of physics and
the laws of mind are not dependent of the choice of the initial universal
system.

 

Bruno

 

 





 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger 
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Why AI is impossible

 

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 selecting.

So only life can have intelligence.

 

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

 

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,

only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.

Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,

because only living items can experience the world..

 

 

Roger ,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/12/2012

- Receiving the following content -

From: Evgenii Rudnyi mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru 

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 

Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44

Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI
ordescribing life

 

On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.

 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is 
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them 
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

-- 
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.
mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
mailto:%20unsubscr...@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.

 

-- 
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.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
You

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread William R. Buckley
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 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Jason Resch
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/MPI_15-MAI-91.pdf
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm

Jason


On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:05 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-13 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Jason,

 On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 subejectivity. With comp any first
 order logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws of physics
 and the laws of mind are not dependent of the choice of the initial
 universal system.



 Bruno,

 Does the universal system change the measure of different programs and
 observers, or do programs that implement programs (such as the UDA) end up
 making the initial choice of system of no consequence?


 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 the physical laws will be confusing, and
 you will have an hard time to convince people that you have derived the
 quantum from comp, as you will have seemed to introduce it at the start. So
 it is better to start with the less looking physical initial system, and
 it is preferable to start from one very well know, like number + addition
 and multiplication.

 So, let us take it to fix the thing. The theory of everything is then
 given by the minimal number of axioms we need to recover Turing
 universality.

 Amazingly enough the two following axioms are already enough, where the
 variable are quantified universally. I assume also some equality rules, but
 not logic!

 x + 0 = x
 x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x * 0 = 0
 x*s(y) = (x *y) + x

 This define already a realm in which all universal number exists, and all
 their behavior is accessible from that simple theory: it is sigma_1
 complete, that is the arithmetical version of Turing-complete. Note that
 such a theory is very weak, it has no negation, and cannot prove that 0 ≠
 1, for example. Of course, it is consistent and can't prove that 0 = 1
 either. yet it emulates a UD through the fact that all the numbers
 representing proofs can be proved to exist in that theory.

 Now, in that realm, due to the first person indeterminacy, you are
 multiplied into infinity. More precisely, your actual relative
 computational state appears to be proved to exist relatively to basically
 all universal numbers (and some non universal numbers too), and this
 infinitely often.

 So when you decide to do an experience of physics, dropping an apple, for
 example, the first person indeterminacy dictates that what you will  feel
 to be experienced is given by a statistic on all computations (provably
 existing in the theory above) defined with respect to all universal
 numbers.


Is every program given equal weight in this theory, or might programs that
run more efficiently, longer, or appear more frequently (as embedded
sub-programs) have greater weight in setting the probability of future
first person extensions?

Does the universal system have any bearing on the above?  For example,
intuitively it seems to me that when considering two universal systems, say
Java, and FORTRAN, that due to syntactical differences, different programs
might appear more or less often or easily.

Perhaps all universal systems compete amongst each other, based not only on
the frequency of their programs, but how easily that universal system is
realized in some meta-system.



 So if comp is correct, and if some physical law is correct (like 'dropped
 apples fall'), it can only mean that the vast majority of computation going
 in your actual comp state compute a state of affair where you see the apple
 falling. If you want, the reason why apple fall is that it happens in the
 majority of your computational extensions, and this has to be verified in
 the space of all computations. Everett confirms this very weird
 self-multiplication (weird with respect to the idea that we are unique and
 are living in a unique reality). This translated the problem of why
 physical laws into a problem of statistics in computer science, or in
 number theory.

 Now, instead of using the four axioms above, I could have started with the
 combinators, and use the two combinator axioms:

 ((K x) y) = x
 (((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

 This define exactly the same set of all computations, and the same
 statistical measure problem, and that is what I mean by saying that the
 initial axioms choice is indifferent as long as you start from something
 which define a UD, or all computations (that is: is Turing or sigma_1
 complete).

 Now, clearly, from the first person points of view, it does look like many
 universal system get relatively more important role. Some can be
 geographical, like the local chemical situation on earth (a very special
 universal system), or your parents, but the point is that their 

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-12 Thread smitra

Life is an ill defined phenomenological concept.

Saibal

Citeren Roger rclo...@verizon.net:


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 selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
because only living items can experience the world..


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers 
in AI ordescribing life



On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:

On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:

The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.

The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
is about AI.



What does intelligence means in this context that life is
unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
Where there is more intelligence?

Evgenii


Dear Evgenii,

A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.



My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

--
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.






--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-12 Thread William R. Buckley
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 purely subjective.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger 
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Why AI is impossible

 

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 selecting.

So only life can have intelligence.

 

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

 

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective, 

only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.

Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,

because only living items can experience the world..

 

 

Roger ,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/12/2012 

- Receiving the following content - 

From: Evgenii Rudnyi mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44

Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI
ordescribing life

 

On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.

 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research
 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and
 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is 
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them 
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

-- 
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.
mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
mailto:%20unsubscr...@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.

-- 
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-12 Thread Stephen P. King

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 makes a difference to a third thing).



On 8/12/2012 8:35 AM, 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 selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.
Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.
Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,
only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.
Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,
because only living items can experience the world..
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Evgenii Rudnyi mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-11, 10:22:44
*Subject:* Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to
computers in AI ordescribing life

On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact
999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is
unintelligent.

 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a
study of
 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife
research
 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is
better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous
whole and
 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

-- 
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.
mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
mailto:%20unsubscr...@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.



--
Onward!

Stephen

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon

--
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: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-12 Thread Stephen P. King

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 some other

part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.

QED.

The physical universe is purely subjective.

wrb

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger

*Sent:* Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM
*To:* everything-list
*Subject:* Why AI is impossible

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 selecting.

So only life can have intelligence.

Life is subjective, nonlife is objective.

Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective,

only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced.

Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible,

because only living items can experience the world..

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net

8/12/2012

- Receiving the following content -

*From:*Evgenii Rudnyi mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru

*Receiver:*everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com

*Time:*2012-08-11, 10:22:44

*Subject:*Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to
computers in AI ordescribing life

On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
 On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
 On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
 The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact
999.9% of
 life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is
unintelligent.

 The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a
study of
 artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
 intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife
research
 is about AI.


 What does intelligence means in this context that life is
 unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock.
 Where there is more intelligence?

 Evgenii

 Dear Evgenii,

 A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this
 question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is
better
 to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous
whole and
 then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium.


My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is
unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them
with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence?

Evgenii

-- 
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.
mailto:%20everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
mailto:%20unsubscr...@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 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto: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.



--
Onward!

Stephen

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon

--
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.