Natural vs. Artificial

Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of extraterrestrial intelligence

http://embryogenesisexplained.com/2013/03/the-starivore-hypothesis.html

The author has mentioned two fallacies (slides 6 and 7)

Artificiality-of-the-gaps

and

Naturality-of-the-gaps

I was unable to understand his difference between artificial and natural. It might be this is a good chance to look from another perspective on free will. Could we find the difference between natural and artificial if we say that free will is just illusion?

Discussion

https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/7a33ad367a4808bc

14.05.2013 21:29 Bruno Marchal

I think that with comp you can interpret the sign as the elements of recursively enumerable set (of numbers, or whatever), with their intensional meaning defined by the (universal numbers) supporting them (context). Signs are interesting, they live near the syntax/semantic fixed points. They plausibly speed up computations.”

15.05.2013 15:11 Bruno Marchal

Unfortunately, it is all in french, notably in “Conscience et Mécanisme”.  There I call the modal expression “~Bx”, the Wittgenstein principle, and Bx -> ~x”, the lao-tse-Watts principle, notably because Alan Watts explains it well in “the wisdom of insecurity”. “~B x” says that there is something which cannot be said, and “Bx -> ~x” says that there is something which when said, becomes false. x = false is a trivial solution, but for (correct) machines, x = Dt is a non trivial solution, brought by incompleteness. It makes consistency already obeying some “theological”  principles.

Then it is interesting to see that Lie-Tse appears to be more correct on some “theological” point than Lao-tse or Chouang-Tse, when the x is intepreted by consistency (Dt = ~Bf).”


Comments are closed.