From: The Pantophobic (trivik@stwing.upenn.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 00:09:44 GMT
> According to the Goedel incompleteness theorem
just to clarify that (to reduce the abuse of it)
the theorem basically states that in a system which has enough complexity to
perform simple arithemitcal (or equivelant) operations threr will always be
eaither one of the following cases must be the case:
1. there will be False statements which you can proove to be true
2. there will be true statements for which proofs do not exist
> Thus, this Super-Turing machine could pass any practically
> conceivable Turing test -'practically', that is.
> That's the whole point.
i do not see how this is an argument against strong AI. infalibility is not
something that humans have, so neither will a computer version. you could
consider a computer who acts like a very stupid human being, so non of this
math hogwash gets into the picture
if you mean that it may not convince us 100% of the time, well i have friends
who fail to convince me of their being concious sometimes.
> Given that we know what
> the symbols mean, we know that the equation '3 + 4 = 7' is true. 100%.
> Agreed? The same certainty we can have with some noncomputable problems.
ok, now for some history.
people wanted to find out (early 1900's) wheather there was any general formula
which when given a mathematical formula could decide wheather it was true,
false or syntactically incoherent. Sort of like your chineese room - pass a
sequence of symbols, and it spits out true/false/gibberish. We need to come up
with the information to give to the man sitting inside.
godel prooved that what we give him (if we can at all) must not pass of as
being math. If it could be discribed mathematically, then he showed that it
would not work.
so now penrose (as understood by me, from the discription provided by you)
seams to make the leap that this means that there is no written (and
mathematically undescribable) information that i could conceivably give him to
make him do his work. this is not a valid logical leap.
and again besides the point, as you could construct an imperfectally concious
machine - one which is not free of contradictions and complete at the same
time. i do not think any human being is free of contradictions and complete at
the same time (i would call him/her a god), and so no need to expect a
perfectlly concious robo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:07 GMT