🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <492e6ff2.1a4d7@cicada.engin.umich.edu> zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes:
>(Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>In chess it is not possible to checkmate a king with _only_ two knights.
>>If you regard this as a property of reality how is it a consequence of
>>the laws of physics? 

>I am a Reductionist.  These kinds of reductions are terribly tedious, but
>the basic format is:

>     The given property is a consequence of the rules of the game.
>     The rules of the game are the consequence of human perceptions
>     of pleasure...

Well, yes, I know that this is the sort of thing Reductionists believe.
What I was hoping was that you would be able to make this kind of
mind-boggling assertion even slightly plausible....

Let me try a different tack. I think most people (even Reductionists)
believe that ANY intelligent kind of creature beyond a certain level of
sophistication will HAVE to understand basic arithmetic. So, to
interpret this within a reductionist frame I'd have to say something
like this (wouldn't I?): "the universe is such that the perceptions of
pleasure of any intelligent technological being whatsoever will
naturally lead it to the following kind of arithmetic (set theory,
Euclidean geometry, etc)." 

Now that statement is so far from telling me anything interesting about
intelligent creatures, the universe, arithmetic, etc., and so far from
being interestingly falsifiable (i.e. not counting the trivial
counter-example falsifiability of "here's a NY garage mechanic who
can't do arithmetic"), that I'm tempted to regard it as simply an
expression of religious faith.

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna   031 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK