Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness
From: Thomas Stegen CES2000 (tstegen+usenet_at_cis.strath.ac.uk)
Date: 02/06/04
- Next message: Lindsey: "Re: cdonts won't send mail"
- Previous message: Thomas Stegen CES2000: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- In reply to: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Reply: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:15:35 +0000
Programmer Dude wrote:
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
>
>
>> Theoretically, /I/ don't care about atoms OR space. I'm a
>>Platonist. ;-)
>
>
> The math is the reality, eh? (-:
>
> Too bad it's OT, because I'm an Aristotle-ist, and it would be fun
> to debate the issue. I must admit, Platonists do have the edge
> when it comes to many-worlds theories....
>
We could make it on topic by discussing what a computer can
compute (or if you can program a computer to do any task that
for example a human can). I am going to try anyways.
First of, I am a sort of a Platonist. I do not quite believe
in that our observable world is just a reflection of the real
world without some qualification. I believe (or want to be
true at least) that everything in the universe can be described
perfectly by mathematics. However our ability to discover all
the relationships and all the complexities might be limited.
And by mathematics I also include undiscovered branches of
mathematics (Maybe this can be extended to mean that when I talk
about mathematics I mean everything that can be rigorously
reasoned about.)
Take AI for example. I think it is possible (at least in theory)
to construct some device that acts like a human thinks like a human
and for most intents and purposes. This does challenge the idea of
free will, but I am not sure that this is an issue. Whether we know
it or not does not affect the truth of the matter.
(maybe an artificial brain needs to be made up of proper brain
material, who knows what effects "brain-material-noise" might
have on our thinking process)
It is somhow plausible that the entire universe is in fact a
computer simulation of some universe. If we make the hypothesis
that consciousness occurs because we observe that our actions
has an affect on ourself. If each entity in the simulated universe
is modelled by a state machine or neural network of sufficient
complexity they might eventually get into a state where they are
aware of how actions will affect them. If this is true (not that
the universe is simulated, but that it can be) then we can create
a program which either has or will eventually attain consciousness.
It also follows that the universe itself (or a computer) will gain
a consciousness unless some external stimuli is applied.
("Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" investigates this
at least to a certain extent).
I'll stop now, if this is on topic enough for you I will be happy
to continue the discussion. :)
-- Thomas.
- Next message: Lindsey: "Re: cdonts won't send mail"
- Previous message: Thomas Stegen CES2000: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- In reply to: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Next in thread: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Reply: Programmer Dude: "Re: [EGN] Re: turing completeness"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|