Philosophy Now Forum

MTT has an isomorphism to lambda calculus. MTT is consistent and complete and will not allow introducing any axioms conflicting with its current axioms. These two claims are incompatible with each other. If MTT is Turing complete then any and all notions of "formal proof" are isomorphic t...

I'm not sure how the so-called principle of explosion affects or could possibly affect mathematical theorems. Gödel maybe? EB It affects all formal systems. From a contradiction anything follows, which trivialises the notions of truth and falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosio...

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:52 pm English is really beyond your grasp.

I get by. Somehow.

MTT is a universal Tarski meta-language that can represent the semantics of any expression of any formal system, including its own semantics as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). So the MTT language is NOT Turing complete? How do you do shortest-path traversal of the DAG? And if MTT IS Turing-complete...

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:37 pm They are truly machines in that their failure modes are typical of machines

Semantics. 'Death' is a failure mode specific to biological machines.

The fundamental point is that 'failure' is a function of perspective.

What one entity regards as 'failure' another regards as 'success'.

There is of course a real difference between the intelligence of humans and that of AIs. And it is a simple difference. Humans have a universal intelligence and one that is very sturdy, essentially by taking into account a very large set of data, systematically way beyond what is strictly necessary...

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:07 pm You wrote "nobody has good answers". Do you mean me or you?

Me, you, people who are actively trying to solve these problems.

There isn't a human on Earth that has good answers when it comes to AI.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:08 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:41 pmAre you really that stupid?

You have to ask?

The principle of charity has me doubting myself.

This post requires some knowledge of the terminology of formal proofs of symbolic logic. In the same way that not all finite strings are well-formed formula (when semantic criteria is applied) not all closed WFF are logic sentences. Any expression of language that is neither true nor false is not a...

Some people may want to put a spin on intelligence. I want to take it off by calling AI a substitute for intelligence. There is nothing technical nor socio-political in that. That depends on whether your definition of AI includes or excludes AGI . Most people who work in the field draw the distinct...

So, to you, somebody who blindly pursues ideas like Truth is 'idealism'. Okay, but some might consider that a different or strange label to call somebody. "Look, there is 'idealism' walking towards us". Or, "I want you to meet 'idealism'". It "might" work, but some mig...

To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'. Only goes to show how much you misunderstand. Given the symbolic-numeric distinction I lean towards numerics. I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Trut...

People can make one argument and when that doesn't work, they can make another argument. I cannot find a resolution because the arguments keep changing. As long as this keeps going on resolution is not possible. The arguments keep changing because the problem is ill-defined. That's a short way of s...

well it could said that theologically or philosophically speaking, man's power is to destroy, or the result of man's judgements, is death. but the ultimate power, na, not when one can see plainly that all man does returns to the ground. some religious theorize who the destroyer is, and the evidence...

Who is intelligent, the physist with a Phd or the car salesman with a high school education? Does it matter if they get the job done? AI will get the job done. What job is that? What's the difference between AI and physists? That's pretty much it. What is the yardstick for 'intelligence'? Hint: It ...