Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!bathe.princeton.edu!schechtr
From: schechtr@bathe.princeton.edu (Joshua B. Schechter)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan13.235951.11549@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bathe.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <86044.subia001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <3f3ujb$3rj@crl4.crl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 23:59:51 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <3f3ujb$3rj@crl4.crl.com> azi@crl.com (Walter Raisanen) writes:
>Robert Warren Subiaga, Jr. (subia001@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
>
>: It is obvious from the way logicians, mathematicians and scientists are 
>: able to formalize Godel Undecidability that they are not vulnerable 
>: TO that Undecidability.
>[ snip ]
>: DEFINITION--vulnerable to the Godel argument. Ergo, human beings have a 
>: fundamental level of "reasoning" more expansive than computers.
>[ snip ]
>:                         [Human beings are not mere computers]
>
>: Other livings things also do not seem to "hang up" on any specific 
>: situation at all that might suggest Godel Undecidability, making us 
>: skeptical that a Godel argument exists for them either--and increasing the 
>: plausibility that our immunity to Godel undecidability is something 
>: physiological that we have in common with other living things. 
>
>Perhaps there is a fundamental difference in mode of operation between 
>brains and computers.  It could be that brains are basically 
>self-referential, that is, they make up their world model as they learn 
>about it by referencing new observations and conclusions to remembered 
>observations and conclusions.  There is no firm ground upon which the 
>structure stands, and Global Undecidability is irrelevant.
>Computers, on the other hand, base their observations and conclusions on 
>Boolean logic, with a basis assumed by the designer of the machine, and 
>all conclusions required to be consistent with that basis and logic.
>[snip]

Perhaps our advantage lies in the fact we do not have consistent systems 
for brains.  And, perhaps computers could be designed to do the same.

Remeber the paradox :
You cannot consistently assert this statement. 

It perhaps is analogous to Godel's statement, and the only reason that we 
can assert it, is that we do not have the requirement to be logically 
consistent.


