Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2(pesnta.1.3) 9/5/84; site epicen.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!epicen!jbuck From: jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Mind as Turing Machine Message-ID: <258@epicen.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 22:06:49 EST Article-I.D.: epicen.258 Posted: Sat Nov 2 22:06:49 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 07:26:58 EST References: <1996@umcp-cs.UUCP> <667@hwcs.UUCP> <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP> <212@ucdavis.UUCP> Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 23 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:3102 net.math:2509 Summary: x > From: cccjohn@ucdavis.UUCP (John Carlson) > 1) Assume you could design a Turing-like machine equivalent to > yourself. > 2) Then you could comprehend all of this machine's actions, > because you would know all of it's inputs and outputs. > 3) Then you could comprehend all of your actions. Statement 2), even when applied to a much simpler system that a person (such as a theory of the natural numbers 0, 1, 2, ...), is what Godel disproved. That is, even though we write down exactly what the rules of arithmetic are, there are an infinity of statements that we can't determine the truth of. This is a common fallacy made by people who argue against machine intelligence: that knowing the inputs and the rules of a machine, you understand it completely and it can never surprise you. This just isn't so. If you personally don't suffer from this limitation Godel discovered (as some people like to argue) I have a few computer programs I'd like to have you debug. :-) -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014