On Mar 26, 4:02 am, rjones@soartech.com wrote:   
   > On Mar 24, 7:50 pm, jonesrob@emporia.edu wrote:   
   >   
   [[ Quote trimmed, see upthread for details]]   
      
   > > What might string theory bring?  Will our laws of physics   
   > > always be changing too?  If so there goes your inviolate   
   > > level. Will anything in science ever remain fixed?   
   >   
   > I think you are misunderstanding what "the inviolate level" is.  For   
   > example, an inviolate level would not change just because our   
   > understanding changes of how the universe works, as you seem to be   
   > implying here.   
   >   
   > Any formal system must have an interpreter.  The formal system can   
   > manipulate symbols and, at some levels, may even manipulate some of   
   > its own interpretation rules.  But there is always some level of   
   > interpreter machinery that the formal system has no influence over.   
   > This is the "inviolate level".  For example, DNA can be transcribed to   
   > produce proteins.  Proteins can copy and alter the DNA, or influence   
   > the transcription process.  But neither DNA nor proteins can change   
   > the physical laws directing how molecules attract to each other, fit   
   > together, and interact with each other.  A computer program can   
   > contain "self-modifying code", but it cannot change the hardwired   
   > microprogramming from which all of the instructions are ultimately   
   > implemented.  Or if you *do* give your computer the ability to change   
   > the microprogramming, you are just changing where the inviolate level   
   > is, because the program can't change the wiring structure or the   
   > number of registers.  Or if you *do* turn your program into a robot   
   > that can alter its own hardware, that's still subject to some   
   > machinery (such as how electrons flow through the circuits) that it   
   > cannot change.  When you do math, your manipulation of mathematical   
   > symbols may change "how you think" in terms of how you think about   
   > math, but it can't change the physics of the neuro-chemical processes   
   > that implementing your thinking processes (this is independent of what   
   > our current state of understanding is about how those processes   
   > work).  This is what Hofstadter means about there always being an   
   > inviolate level (in my opinion).   
   >   
      
   When we only understood Newtonian mechanics we could build   
   Babbage computers.  After we learned about electricity we   
   could made PCs.  The machinery changed.  Can't an AI   
   change things at increasingly lower levels?  Why believe   
   that there is some lowest bedrock level if science has   
   never bottomed out yet?   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated ... your article may take a while to appear. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)