From: Tim TylerNewsgroups: sci.bio.evolution Subject: Re: Robot Evolution Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:19:03 -0500 (EST) Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote: > Tim Tyler wrote: > > The argument from Godel's theorem really is totally dead. > > > > If you don't see why, I recommend consulting the numerous > > refutations of the argument on the internet until you > > understand exactly what is wrong with it. > > > > There /may/ be other reasons for thinking machines > > cannot match the computational powers of humans - > > but the argument from Godel's theorem is simply defunct. > > > > It was been dead since the moment it was proposed - and > > only continues its zombie existence in the minds of those > > who don't understand it :-( > > Stripped to its bare bones, I suspect the Godel argument > amounts to something like: > > a. We have reason to believe that Peaono arithemtic is > consistent. > b. Therefore we have reason to believe that its Godel > sentence can not be proven within the system. > c. Therefore we have reason to believe its Godel is > "true". That doesn't mention human beings or machines - and thus is not the argument under discussion. Stripped to its bare bones, the Godel argument amounts to: * Machines have limits on their truth determining capabilites - in particular they cannot consistently assert the truth of their own Godel sentence. * Humans do not have any such limit. * Therefore, humans can do what machines cannot - so they are not equivalent to machines. The problem should be obvious. There is no evidence at all supporting the second assertion. There are /plenty/ of hard problems which individual humans are unable to determine the truth of. The whole idea is totally nuts - a relic from Plato's era. -- Tim Tyler