John,
On 09 Oct 2012, at 22:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of
detailed description what the universal machine consists of and how
it functions (maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive
ID. Your "lot of examples" rather denies that you have one.
A universal machine is any entity capable of computing all partial
computable functions. There are many, and for many we can prove that
they are universal machine. For many we can't prove that, or it might
be intrinsically complex to do so.
A Löbian machine is a universal machine which "knows", in a weak
technical precise sense, that they are universal.
Same remark as above, we can prove that some machine are Löbian, but
we might not been able to recognize all those who are.
And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them," it may not be enough for
me. I don't really know HOW conscious I am.
Nor do I. Nor do they, when you listened to them, taking into account
their silence.
I like your counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the "wisdom" (maybe it should read: the intelligence)
of the oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known
circumstances - maybe it is competence.
You meant "intelligence"? I would agree.
You know I prefer the Bohm who discuss with Krishnamurti, than the
Bohm (the same person to be sure) who believes in quantum hidden
variables.
To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as
impediment ('blinded by').
Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that, the more she
know, the more she is ignorant.
Knowledge is only a lantern on a very big unknown. The more light you
put on it, the bigger it seems.
But we can ask question (= develop theories). And we can have
experiences.
Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that the more she
can be intelligent, the more she can be stupid.
And that competence is quite relative, but can be magnified
uncomputably, but also (alas) unpredictably, with many simple
heuristics, like:
- tolerate errors,
- work in union,
- encourage changes of mind,
etc. (By results of Case and Smith, Blum and Blum, Gold, Putnam,
etc.). reference in the biblio of "conscience et mécanisme", in my url.
Bruno
John M
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Richard, "I think" the lengthy text is Ben's article in
response to D. Deutsch.
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.
Thanks for copying.
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
ramifications prima vista.
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate
to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the
capability of reading 'inter'
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to
realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical
science' definitions.
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
(although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
machine unidentified).
Unidentified? I give a lot of examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me,
and the octopus.
In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for
me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as
me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in
which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as
we are blinded by our competences).
It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but
I am not sure.
Bruno
Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical
limits of information - the content of the actual "MODEL" of the
world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology
can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may
be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do
not go BEYOND.
Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic'
worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite
complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and
specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than
the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences
may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what
cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing
machines.
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's
capability - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite
complexity's' relations.
Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible
for machines that work within such borders.
I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
readings, provided that I get to it back.
Thanks again, it was a very interesting scroll-down
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
