Maybe you intend for your program to be “transcended uncomputationally”, but so far as I can tell it is perfectly possible that when reading it I instead transcended it computationally, and I haven’t seen any argument from you that that couldn’t be so. Unless you are indeed arguing that the only thing one can do “computationally” to analyse a program is to execute it blindly, which as I have said a few times now is simply flatly untrue.
You do not need to remind me that the bit saying “meta” is a comment, not a program. I did understand that. (I have the impression that you think people here are stupid because we don’t come to the same conclusions as you do about computation. You should consider other possibilities.)
If the comment is intended only to be a comment, why then I simply disagree that it elucidates anything. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions and so far as I can tell they are false. They don’t become any truer or any more insightful just because you put them inside a comment. You could equally well just have said “consider an infinite loop; it can only be exited noncomputationally”. Which, for reasons I have already given a few times, is completely false.
Of course it’s conceivable to me that I might not in fact be doing something computable. Maybe I am really thinking not with my brain but with some magical immaterial soul. Maybe the laws of physics are not at all what I think they are and my brain is doing some tricks that go beyond what any Turing machine could do. I don’t claim that I definitely am computable. Only that so far as I know I am, and that your arguments so far have given absolutely zero reason to think otherwise.
I cannot conceive of “being a computer” if you mean e.g. being a present-day PC. I don’t see what is supposed to be difficult about conceiving of “being a computer” in the sense of “embodying some in-principle-computable process”.
(I don’t put much weight on what’s “conceivable”, anyway. It might turn out that the real nature of the world is something I don’t have a big enough mind to conceive. Or I might think I can conceive something that actually turns out to have subtle internal contradictions that I haven’t noticed. Whether something “can be conceived” has little to do with whether it’s how things actually are, or even a way things could actually be.)
I agree that if you present some reasoning and I ignore it then I am not having a useful discussion with you about that reasoning. But that’s not what I was saying I might be doing, when I said maybe I was doing what you call “meta-ignoring”. The thing I was ignoring is not any sort of reasoning that you have presented.
Your last paragraph, which apparently “is the whole point”, seems to me to consist entirely of muddle. I can “execute the instruction” if I want to, though I won’t because I don’t want to be in an infinite loop. I can understand the program, see what it does, and decide not to execute it because I can already tell what it will do; that can be done purely computationally and compilers do pretty much this thousands of times every day. If it turns out that my mind is non-computational then clearly it can also be analysed non-computationally by doing whatever my mind does. None of this tells us anything about “the limits of AI”. And none of this means that to “execute it correctly” requires anything uncomputational; in fact, I would say that “executing it correctly” just means running the infinite loop and if you do something else then what you are doing is not executing it at all.
>decide not to execute it because I can already tell what it will do
Since when do computational systems have free will?
>You should consider other possibilities
You can only consider possibilities that are possible. Not everything is possible, or even conceivable.
This statement CANNOT be correctly read deterministically & computationally & in bivalent logic.
It can be true, but it being false is inconsistent, as then you have two logical options with no logical way of deciding between them. So it IS true. It is not “possible” it is false.
It is only possible you can label it “false”, but then you just use false as another word for true, which is literally 100% backwards.
>(I have the impression that you think people here are stupid because we don’t come to the same conclusions as you do about computation. You should consider other possibilities.)
I am not saying they are stupid at all, but if you use your intelligence for 100% backwards logic it might not be too helpful.
If I say 1=1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 in the context of mathematical equality and bivalent logic it is 100% false.
People here want to say it 99.9999999% true and take that as an axiom, but it is wrong in mathematics. It is a WRONG axiom that is extremely convoluted and backwards. That is unfortunately the state of modern mainstream rationality when it comes to topic such as computationally, with some few exception like Penrose, who is mainstream I suppose, although often still completely ignored by many people that have a lot of belief in AI etc...
Maybe that you can still operate well based on such axioms is proof you have a much higher IQ than me. I couldn’t do that as my brain would implode basically. But IQ is measurable intelligence. You cannot measure the transcendence and vastness of infinity, as it is, well infinite. So that kind of intelligence is just beyond any kind of measure of intelligence.
And I will say kids with a still “technically” low IQ in terms of IQ test for adults can embrace and talk about topics of vastness such as outer space quite well.
Maybe you intend for your program to be “transcended uncomputationally”, but so far as I can tell it is perfectly possible that when reading it I instead transcended it computationally, and I haven’t seen any argument from you that that couldn’t be so. Unless you are indeed arguing that the only thing one can do “computationally” to analyse a program is to execute it blindly, which as I have said a few times now is simply flatly untrue.
You do not need to remind me that the bit saying “meta” is a comment, not a program. I did understand that. (I have the impression that you think people here are stupid because we don’t come to the same conclusions as you do about computation. You should consider other possibilities.)
If the comment is intended only to be a comment, why then I simply disagree that it elucidates anything. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions and so far as I can tell they are false. They don’t become any truer or any more insightful just because you put them inside a comment. You could equally well just have said “consider an infinite loop; it can only be exited noncomputationally”. Which, for reasons I have already given a few times, is completely false.
Of course it’s conceivable to me that I might not in fact be doing something computable. Maybe I am really thinking not with my brain but with some magical immaterial soul. Maybe the laws of physics are not at all what I think they are and my brain is doing some tricks that go beyond what any Turing machine could do. I don’t claim that I definitely am computable. Only that so far as I know I am, and that your arguments so far have given absolutely zero reason to think otherwise.
I cannot conceive of “being a computer” if you mean e.g. being a present-day PC. I don’t see what is supposed to be difficult about conceiving of “being a computer” in the sense of “embodying some in-principle-computable process”.
(I don’t put much weight on what’s “conceivable”, anyway. It might turn out that the real nature of the world is something I don’t have a big enough mind to conceive. Or I might think I can conceive something that actually turns out to have subtle internal contradictions that I haven’t noticed. Whether something “can be conceived” has little to do with whether it’s how things actually are, or even a way things could actually be.)
I agree that if you present some reasoning and I ignore it then I am not having a useful discussion with you about that reasoning. But that’s not what I was saying I might be doing, when I said maybe I was doing what you call “meta-ignoring”. The thing I was ignoring is not any sort of reasoning that you have presented.
Your last paragraph, which apparently “is the whole point”, seems to me to consist entirely of muddle. I can “execute the instruction” if I want to, though I won’t because I don’t want to be in an infinite loop. I can understand the program, see what it does, and decide not to execute it because I can already tell what it will do; that can be done purely computationally and compilers do pretty much this thousands of times every day. If it turns out that my mind is non-computational then clearly it can also be analysed non-computationally by doing whatever my mind does. None of this tells us anything about “the limits of AI”. And none of this means that to “execute it correctly” requires anything uncomputational; in fact, I would say that “executing it correctly” just means running the infinite loop and if you do something else then what you are doing is not executing it at all.
>decide not to execute it because I can already tell what it will do
Since when do computational systems have free will?
>You should consider other possibilities
You can only consider possibilities that are possible. Not everything is possible, or even conceivable.
This statement CANNOT be correctly read deterministically & computationally & in bivalent logic.
It can be true, but it being false is inconsistent, as then you have two logical options with no logical way of deciding between them. So it IS true. It is not “possible” it is false.
It is only possible you can label it “false”, but then you just use false as another word for true, which is literally 100% backwards.
>(I have the impression that you think people here are stupid because we don’t come to the same conclusions as you do about computation. You should consider other possibilities.)
I am not saying they are stupid at all, but if you use your intelligence for 100% backwards logic it might not be too helpful.
If I say 1=1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 in the context of mathematical equality and bivalent logic it is 100% false.
People here want to say it 99.9999999% true and take that as an axiom, but it is wrong in mathematics. It is a WRONG axiom that is extremely convoluted and backwards. That is unfortunately the state of modern mainstream rationality when it comes to topic such as computationally, with some few exception like Penrose, who is mainstream I suppose, although often still completely ignored by many people that have a lot of belief in AI etc...
Maybe that you can still operate well based on such axioms is proof you have a much higher IQ than me. I couldn’t do that as my brain would implode basically. But IQ is measurable intelligence. You cannot measure the transcendence and vastness of infinity, as it is, well infinite. So that kind of intelligence is just beyond any kind of measure of intelligence.
And I will say kids with a still “technically” low IQ in terms of IQ test for adults can embrace and talk about topics of vastness such as outer space quite well.