From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman Mon May 25 14:06:15 EDT 1992
Article 5745 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman
>From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: penrose
Date: 19 May 92 11:35:48 MDT
Message-ID: <1992May19.113549.9679@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <1992May6.220605.26774@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu> <1992May19.025328.5332@news.media.mit.edu>
Lines: 89

In article <1992May19.025328.5332@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>>Algorithms are fundamentally incomplete.  Turing machines are fundamentally
>>incomplete.  Think.
>
>I cannot follow this, either.  The predicate "incomplete" doesn't
>apply to either a procedure or a machine.  It applies only to
>consistent logical systems. Think!  All inconsistent systems are complete.

Hmmm.... I am not very interested in inconsistent systems, although it
does seem that we utilize them.  This is not a solution though, you
want consistent ones, eh!  You must muddle through inconsistency to
reach the domain of truth....

>Your problem appears to be the same as Penrose's: the grandiose
>illusion of being able to make self-referent statements rather freely,
>yet maintaining consistency.  

Ah, now this may be correct!  Grandiose delusion is my style.  However,
if I can back it up with mathematics it makes me feel better....

>Look again at Godel's theorem. 

Aaack.  I have looked at it so long that it comes out of my ears.

>My point is simply, so what!  Because
>
>  (1) There's no good reason to assume humans are consistent.
>  (2) There's no reason to program a machine to be, either.

Consistency is found in humans at special places.  What are those
special places?  That is a nice little puzzle


>So I can't follow the remaining arguments.  They all slip into the
>usual commonsense arguments that humans can make infinite clusures of
>extensions, whereas machines can only do it step-by-step. 

Hey, now this is RIGHT on the money (nearly).  I fully intend to build
machines that can function as humans, humans are no unique thing.  What
is it that is different between a human and a machine?  How can one get
access to infinity?  It can be done, using everday appliances, I built
one in my garage. (Well, that is a lie, I don't have a garage, nor a
penchant for building things)

>  (1) You can do this without becoming inconsistent?
>  (2) That you can't write algorithms -- that is, programs -- which do
>the same sorts of verbal self-references?

I don't think I could do these fantastic things by myself....

>All this nonsense seems to depend on these two absurd assumptions.
>I've had it with people who say that only people can be "informal" and
>also that people can magically escape the consequences of what Godel
>discovered!  Yes, I know, Godel said he thought so, too.  That's not a
>convincing proof, though!

I've had it with people who get so set in assumptions that they can't
accept the truth no matter how horrible it turns out to be.  And to
totally confuse things, lets consider "magic"

What type of things happen in our universe that appear magical?  
Seriously, there are things that transpire that are "inexplicable".  If
you incorporate these into a Turing machine, it suddenly becomes more
powerful in an odd way.... It breaks out of infinite regress, it obtains
the power of the gods, self referential ability, ingenuity, insight.
I know of no computer built now which can do these things, manfucturers
avoid it like the plague, because they are afraid of it.  Kind of wierd, but 
it is because of the foundations of western thought which have led us into
a dead end of thought.  I suppose that Lao Tzu and Bhudda new that
their ideas would eventually strike at the foundations of logical thought
and dissolve them.  But it all DOES tie into Godel, but really more to
Cantor than anyone else.  Godel's idea is so powerful though as an extension
that it gets confusing who to credit.  Maybe Turing, for he did a lot of
work showing the inadequacy of his own creation.  Why is it so inadequate?
Perhaps we are reaching the end of western civilization, as it brings
itself to a close with its own foundations.   I don't know, I think
that really this is some sort of grandiose delusion.

  If you notice the train of western thought, it has absolutely revolted
and twisted against and denied a lot of things.  Why?  If you examine
what it is fleeing from, you will discover quite a few interesting things
which simultaneously demystifies and mystifies a lot of subjects.  Kind
of wierd.  I guess that explains why every paper I work on dissappears into
a black hole with little comment, even though the ideas are quite trivial
and obvious.

  Breaking out of Godels trap is not so hard, you only must transcend
yourself.


