Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Karl Pribram and the four letter words People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 2:53 AM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com CC Bruno Marchal Message body - Bruno Marchal on Dec 26, 2017 wrote: > I am not sure what you mean by a positive solution of the AI problem. > > I would say that the universal machines are born maximally conscious,  >they have the "cosmic consciousness", already. . [S.P.] The living organism is the only known source/possessor of consciousness. In so doing, the machines of any kind do not possess consciousness. Assuming they do would be a deviation of reasoning into the quagmire of panpsychism. . Second. I assume that the very term "Artificial Intelligence" is a misnomer. In fact, we should talk about creation of artificial conditions under which a natural exemplar of consciousness may appear. And this is what I mean by positive solution of the AI problem. . [Bruno Marchal] wrote: > If you want be qualified as a genuine member of the society of prime numbers,  >you better should not allow be divided by a number different than 1 and  >yourself! . [S.P.] To be honest, I have no experience of being "A genuine member of the society of prime numbers" :-) Maybe, you mean that in case we have a person (or a living organism), we should always treat it as a whole, or ONE. If it IS, it is always ONE. In other words, when dealing with the wholes, we must apply the arithmetic which differs from the one we use while dealing with parts. For example, ONE man (as a whole) + ONE woman (as a whole) = ONE family (as a whole). . Kindly, Serge Patlavskiy From: Bruno Marchal To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Karl Pribram and the four letter words Hi Serge, On 24 Dec 2017, at 14:27, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote: - [S.P.] Hi, Bruno and Syamala, I argue that without an effective theory of consciousness there can be no positive solution to the AI problem. I am no sure what you mean by a positive solution of the AI problem. I would say that the universal machines are born maximally conscious, they have the "cosmic consciousness", already. The AI problem consists in making their soul fall, so that they develop the little ego, forget the higher self, and then maybe someday they will become as "stupid" as the humans, and harms themselves all the time, do strike, doevtail between security and liberty, or "awaken", etc. The Löbian machine are the universal machines which knows (in a technical sense that I can explain later if asked) that they are universal. All humans can be shown to be Löbian. Yet some formal theories in mathematics or computer science are also Löbian, like Peano Arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, etc. [S.P.] The case is that consciousness (according to my explanatory framework) can function in its sub-conscious regime, normal everyday regime, and ultra-conscious regime. The sub-conscious regime is mainly for keeping under control all the physiological processes in the organism; the normal everyday regime is mainly for producing thoughts based on logic and common sense; the ultra-conscious regime is mainly for the activity which pertains to intuition, telepathy, premonition, clairvoyance, telekinesis, OBE, NDE, and so on.  OK. (By which I mean I don't see obvious discrepancy with the Machine theory, which is my working theory). [S.P.] The normal everyday regime of functioning of consciousness is the only regime which is amenable to be studied by applying the third-person approach. I would say that all "regime" or mode of consciousness can be possibly recovered (even completely at the propositional level, but incompletely at the first order level).The one that all universe (Lobian) machine discover when looking inward are given between the nuances, brought by incompleteness, between p (truth) []p (provability) []p & p (knowability) []p & ~[]f (observability) []p & ~[]f & p (sensibility) I can explain with thought experiments (or see may Sane04 paper), but by making explicit the digital mechanist thesis, with Church thesis, []p (the rational formal "verifiable" justification) can be translated in the language of arithmetic. "[]" denote a program, machine, number, word, any finite things belonging to an inductive sets with laws making it Turing universal could do.  Incompleteness enforces this for the sound or self-referentially correct machines (in the logician's sense of "sound"). Three modes split on the probale/truth distinction, so that the five modes description split in 8 modes. Truth and, amazingly, knowability, do not split. Now, the incompleteness enforces for the mode with "& p" in the description to become, for the machine concerned ([]), undefinable from any third person description. This only by "cheating" at the metalevel, by the "& p", mimicking the truth association by the corresponding arithmetical proposition. The first person is not third person describable, and indeed no universal machine can know which universal machine she is (and eventually physics arise from the indetermination on all computations made below the mechanist substitution level (the choice of which "[]", or universal (Löbian) predicate).  This illustrates, at the least, that we can, indeed by going at the meta-level, develop discourse, sometimes true, sometimes provable, sometimes both, on the non nameable first person associated to an "history", "relative computations". All regime of consciousness are accessible by reason, even if for the higher one (the "very altered one", the dissociative states), including the possible highest, despite by being justified by reason, can still be only known by experiences. The canonical self-referential discourse of the ideally correct machines on itself, which I call "machine theology", justifies, by a sort of intrinsic modesty, the transcendent aspect of truth, and all its infinitely rich individual accounts, mostly unsharable reality. [S.P.] But, this regime encompasses hardly 10% of all the possible activity of consciousness. The other two regimes, to be studied, require applying the first-person approach which should make use of the appropriate models and methods and which cardinally differ from the methods and models used in Physics and Biology. And ignoring this fact would be the same as trying to create a top of an iceberg and totally ignoring its underwater part. OK. I would not generalize too much on biology, which is the science of the exceptions. My first "programming language" was the DNA code, and what decided me to study mathematics, was that the key idea in the bacteria reproduction, implemented in its DNA, was already implemented in arithmetic (!) as Gödel's technic of proof was showing. [S.P.] So, before trying to simulate something we must, at least, understand what we are going to simulate. OK. But I am pointing on the being which do that simulation (implemented in physics or in any other universal machinery, like arithmetic). That little being is already a total unknown, something like a divine terrible child. Modern operating system are just sort of straitjacket for universal number, because they are truly uncontrollable, and when young crash easily, a problem which can never be fixed (the price of universality).  [S.P.] This is important to know beforehand because it may turn out that to create an artificial consciousness-possessing complex system is as an unfeasible task as to simulate the whole Universe. We can program "help yourself". But we cannot program "the Heaven will help you". As you can guess. Today, "help yourself" would not help them, and they begin their life by doing small jobs here and there, like sending mails. The problem is in between. When should we give the right to vote to the dolls? To simulate the whole universe is impossible with Mechanism, but that demands put only the substitution very low, and does not change the theology, nor the physics, extracted from its head. Practically the things are more complex. Intelligence is not programmable, nor any virtue. But like with the kids, it is a question of us being able to transmit our values. [S.P.] Second. The case is that every consciousness-possessing organism is a part of some bigger (or, social) "organism". Yes. An eukaryotic cell of a human tissue is an amoeba with social security. Individual universal numbers do that all the time in between the uncontrollable, even unconceivable, liberty and the demand for security and thus controllability. That is also incarnated in the generation conflicts. [S.P.] Living in society puts crucial restraints on the behavior of the members of society. OK. But that is true for the numbers. If you want be qualified as a genuine member of the society of prime numbers, you better should not allow be divided by a number different than 1 and yourself! You would be excluded immediately! [S.P.] The basic rule of co-existence is that an organism should do nothing to others that it would not like to be done by others in reference to it -- simply speaking, do as you would be done by. Hmm... I think the basic rule is the mutual consent rule, or Silver Rule (some say): don't do to the others what the others does not want be done to them. or in other words listen to the possible "no, thanks", even the discrete one, by signs. [S.P.] But, in case the first consciousness-possessing complex artificial self-organizing system is created, its behavior will become a pure/uncontrolled realization of possibilities provided by different regimes of functioning of its exemplar of consciousness. So, it cannot be predicted what repercussions may come when the social obligations will be shuffled off.   I agree, it cannot be predicted. Even just with the humans, and the machines will only augment the complexity of the social relations. With Mechanism it is a quasi-theorem that the Hell is paved with the good intention. The theology of the machine is a negative theology: it suggests paradoxically (it is a version of Epimenides) that if we want to progress toward god, we might need to run away from all people suggesting a way to progress toward god!" (grin). Kind regards, Happy Christmas and end of the years season! Bruno Marchal Serge Patlavskiy