1

Topic: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

In the middle between the theorem of break and the theorem of Rajsa there is one more theorem, hardly more the general, than the first and hardly less, than the second. It is the theorem of self-applicability of algorithms. Under self-applicability here it is meant to fulfill correctly ability of algorithm in a situation when the input data for it is its own formal description. The given theorem states that the algorithms solving a problem of self-applicability, cannot exist. It is proved even easier, than the break theorem as necessity of reviewing of a diagonal case (f (f (f))) here is obvious from the statement. Thus, we consider the algorithm solving for a problem of self-applicability and we show presence of the contradiction as though hinting at justice of a statement of the theorem. All real computational models existing nowadays (that is what can exist from the point of view of the modern laws of physics), whether it be quantum computings, or , etc., can be emulated by the classical machine of Turing. It means that: all such models do not exceed  model from the point of view of computing power in respect of capacity of set of algorithmic problems solved by them; to admit existence of machine thinking,  human, it is necessary as well to admit that human thought an essence - improbably difficult, but nevertheless the algorithm which is giving in to emulation by the machine of Turing. The philosophy defines thinking, as an integral part of display of consciousness of the person. Here that write about it in their these Wikipedias:" Select following forms of consciousness: consciousness as consciousness consciousness itself, mind as conceiving consciousness, that is comprehending the world in concepts (mind categories), reason as self-conscious mind and spirit as the higher form of consciousness including all other forms. Distinction of mind and reason consists that the mind correlates the concepts to the world and consequently its criterion of the validity is consistency. The reason as self-conscious mind rises before dialectic holding of contradictions as correlates not only the concepts to the world, but also itself with the concepts. "Count, how many time in this citation that diagonal construction proving including insolubility of a problem of self-applicability is mentioned?

2

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> In the middle between the theorem of break and the theorem of Rajsa there is one more theorem, hardly more the general, than the first and hardly less, than the second. It is the theorem of self-applicability of algorithms. Under self-applicability here it is meant to fulfill correctly ability of algorithm in a situation when the input data for it is its own formal description... KV> count, how many time in this citation that diagonal construction proving including insolubility of a problem of self-applicability is mentioned? How many time in life you passed through yourself the formal description of?

3

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, 0x7be, you wrote: 0> How many time in life you passed through yourself the formal description of? So about that, including, and speech. As soon as we come to necessity of the formal description something, we on a way have the ghost of Godel softly explaining () that or we describe not everything, or  to ourselves such that with the help same the description we can not explain. Cantor, a halting problem, Rice - same all grows therefrom. The philosophy states that similar diagonal constructions is absolutely not mandatory lead to origin of contradictions, and, hence, the consciousness in philosophical understanding (at least) cannot exist on current computational models.

4

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: 0>> How many time in life you passed through yourself the formal description of? KV> So about that, including, and speech. As soon as we come to necessity of the formal description something, we on a way have the ghost of Godel softly explaining () that or we describe not everything, or  to ourselves such that with the help same the description we can not explain. Cantor, a halting problem, Rice - same all grows therefrom. The philosophy states that similar diagonal constructions is absolutely not mandatory lead to origin of contradictions, and, hence, the consciousness in philosophical understanding (at least) cannot exist on current computational models. And can be simply incorrect to equate ability to think to ability "to process formal descriptions of"? People are able to reflex, but representation about itself is always a reduced model.

5

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, 0x7be, you wrote: 0> And can be simply incorrect to equate ability to think to ability "to process formal descriptions of"? Perhaps, and can and is not present. Depends on the argumentation. I the - resulted above, in the initial message 0> People are able to reflex, but representation about itself is always a reduced model. Selected too it would be quite good to argue to begin with, but nevertheless, even if for it and so people are obviously capable to construct independently this model and to operate to it. Algorithms not in a state to solve incapable of solution problems in a similar way since the problem of creation of a reduced model invariably rests against the same theorem of Rajsa.

6

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> that people are obviously capable to construct independently this model and to operate to it. When I hear "obviously", my hand reaches for a pistol Prove that you have a model you with which you can operate, and that this model is full and exact.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

7

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV>) to admit existence of machine thinking,  human, it is necessary as well to admit that human thought an essence - improbably difficult, but nevertheless the algorithm which is giving in to emulation by the machine of Turing. But from the theory about just people follows that the person can keep in the memory and accordingly operate no more than 7 (+/-2) concepts simultaneously, that is from 5 to 9, and even it is less. And meanwhile started to appear TPU that too changes business. And still people research own reason and accordingly create forms of record and logic handling, and the logician in translation into Russian - thinking, judgement. Logic language is language of thinking and it describes not a mathematical language. And the proof ratios of values have the thinking nature, instead of. It in the USSR was such warp because that who taught logic, that is a science about thinking were philosophers, and philosophers as it is known plan to kill Stalin and other delirium in the spirit of those times. Accordingly someone left the big science which including imparted at schools, and someone remained and masked under the mathematician. As a result in a heritage got thought that that it is good to program, it is necessary to know mathematics well. But that it is good to program, it is necessary to be able to think. A problem of those who proves insolubility something that while they spend for it the forces, others find the decision. This my personal judgement, but I consider that the thinking similar and even more perfect, than human, can function on the modern home PC. Simply it is not necessary to solve a problem in a forehead. Moreover, the person studies decades. And to master something idle time hours, and even days are necessary. People process the information extremely slowly. If to select so monstrous abyss of time to computers also they consult having the appropriate software. As to storage, whether people remember all that see. No, do not remember. Time we speak about introspection here let everyone leads it for itself(himself). My introspection shows that to learn it is necessary to spend time abyss, and the acquired concepts will be not too much. The typical book will contain one million characters, it is less than words. But one million characters it roughly telling mbyte. To read the book are necessary about days, together with a dream, meal and other affairs. Thus for these days it will not be acquired. It simply pass of a serial data stream in storage. And so the computer for achievement of level of consciousness of the person is not obliged to feign each neuron. In that and advantage of computer technics that it can combine in herself set of principles subject to change and improving that while is inaccessible to the nature of people. And if to prove that the computer cannot think without understood at all as think itself so it is possible to prove that the same computers are impossible. Here there would be a laughter if mankind had heard plenty of such geniuses still sat on gears. Still I will return to the home PC subject, all knowledge created by mankind forms by mankind, instead of the separate person. People run through themselves knowledge received and processed by other people. And that someone can think that the separate home PC should be as all mankind together taken that is incorrect. At people by the way too not all so is unambiguous, various areas of nervous system are responsible for different functions, differently brains too did not work as it is necessary. So here the question in a software and as in the involved capacities, that is whether is admissible to train one consciousness decades, or is better to collect a cluster and to accelerate training.

8

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, CoderMonkey, you wrote: CM> Prove that you have a model you with which you can operate, and that this model is full and exact. Everything that it is necessary to prove was specific to you, last year well proved Ikemefula in  And it is that rare occurence when I with it completely agree.

9

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

KV> people are obviously capable to construct independently this model and to operate to it To me it seems that people at modeling of (and other people), permanently use  (it is admissible on mirror neurons, they like closest to this task) which allow to transfer on itself"as much as difficult models of others. This  if to compare to programming tasks - something like LIST in BASIC (for the task to write the program which prints itself), or macroes lisp which not problem to take existing function,  it and to put back. For the account of it the interesting thing - instead of operation in restrictions of the theorem of self-applicability turns out, we work with other task -" applicabilities of our algorithm to similar "on which restriction is not spread, and then mirror neurons roll the received results already on" our consciousness ".

10

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, hi_octane, you wrote: _> For the account of it the interesting thing - instead of operation in restrictions of the theorem of self-applicability turns out, we work with other task - "applicabilities of our algorithm to similar" on which restriction is not spread, and then mirror neurons roll the received results already on "our consciousness". And how the Buddha?

11

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: CM>> Prove that you have a model you with which you can operate, and that this model is full and exact. KV> Everything that it is necessary to prove was specific to you, last year well proved Ikemefula in  And it is that rare occurence when I with it completely agree. Give the reference, and. It is very interesting that there such really rare it is written.

12

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> count, how many time in this citation that diagonal construction proving including insolubility of a problem of self-applicability is mentioned? I have a (?) point of view on reason which consists in its essence as constant modeling of a reality beforehand - from the elementary physical responses, to modeling of a surrounding and in peak consciousness as synthesis of the most general models. It as I consider, that way that transited reason from the elementary to us.

13

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, hi_octane, you wrote: _> which as much as difficult models of others allow to transfer on themselves". The kakovaja model, by the way, easily gives errors on orders, so level of reliability at it the extremely doubtful. For example, in case of experiment of Milgrema the extremely small number of the interrogated stated an estimation which differed from real result less than in 10 times.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

14

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> Everything that it is necessary to prove was specific to you, last year well proved Ikemefula in  And it is that rare occurence when I with it completely agree. Leaving from the answer is included. Everything that was necessary to me the nobility about level of your reasonings, you already gave this answer.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

15

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, CoderMonkey, you wrote: CM> Leaving from the answer is included. CM> everything that was necessary to me the nobility about level of your reasonings, you already gave this answer. You do not deserve other level.

16

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> you do not deserve Other level. You on operation offended, whether that? Well you fasten, it happens.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

17

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, velkin, you wrote: In my initial message speech generally about other. All written by you is reduced to two concepts: to storage and high-speed performance. Neither that, nor another does not concern computing power in mathematical sense of this word. At , at least, semi-infinite storage. Hence, for  its comparing with a human brain, it is necessary to consider its model having just the same "restriction" on storage. As to high-speed performance , working for N time units and general-purpose , emulating that  for not less, than square time, are equipotent. The quantum algorithms solving exponential tasks for polynomial time  of their emulation on  for exponential time, etc. the Essence not in those, this or that task, and in what capacity of set of tasks solved by machine can be how much effectively solved. Incapable of solution problems so are called that they in essence cannot be solved without dependence from storage accessible to the machine or time for decision search. Therefore, it is necessary to wish only good luck to those who instead of the proof of resolvability of any problem rushes at once on searches of its decision. As to: V> logic Language is language of thinking and it describes not a mathematical language. That here would be quite good to be defined at first by what it for the logician which cannot be described a mathematical language? It can/should possess what properties, that the given restriction became possible?

18

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, hi_octane, you wrote: _> For the account of it the interesting thing - instead of operation in restrictions of the theorem of self-applicability turns out, we work with other task - "applicabilities of our algorithm to similar" on which restriction is not spread, and then mirror neurons roll the received results already on "our consciousness". There was a vague sensation that speech here goes about ability of human thought to abstraction Yes, it is interesting.

19

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, SomeOne_TT, you wrote: SO _> I have the (?) the point of view on reason which consists in its essence as constant modeling of a reality beforehand SO _> - from the elementary physical responses, to modeling of a surrounding and in peak consciousness as synthesis of the most general models. "Modeling" - in sense, assumptions of possibility of approach of those or other events in a subjective (perceived) reality?

20

Re: Whether aloud on a subject "the machine can think of thoughts?"

Hello, kochetkov.vladimir, you wrote: KV> Hello, SomeOne_TT, you wrote: SO _>> I have the (?) the point of view on reason which consists in its essence as constant modeling of a reality beforehand SO _>> - from the elementary physical responses, to modeling of a surrounding and in peak consciousness as synthesis of the most general models. KV> "modeling" - in sense, assumptions of possibility of approach of those or other events in a subjective (perceived) reality? Yes, it is faithful. Simulation of a surrounding and relationships of cause and effect. On rather small time interval, say, microsecond. Physical simulations for a long time "" in separate departments of a brain like a cerebellum, and that above permanently scrolls/estimates all surrounding-world-through-micro second through the built model of communications in search of mismatches that happens actually.