Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: Joshua@joshpers.demon.co.uk (Joshua Green)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!joshpers.demon.co.uk!Joshua
Subject: Re: Review of Shadows of the Mind
References: <3lf6su$3p3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  <3laglc$f7r@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3lcjoe$9u4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <3ld27i$7oh@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: HQ
Reply-To: Joshua@joshpers.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines:  23
X-Posting-Host: joshpers.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:28:25 +0000
Message-ID: <807491844wnr@joshpers.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

I have picked up this thread in mid stream, but find that the 
referrences to Godel caught my attention.

Why do you infer from Godel's theorem that no algorithmic approach can 
succeed at a semantic level?

Godel's theorem is limited to the use of a formal logistic system (with 
the expressive power of R3 or better?). Who is to say that an 
algorithmic approach has to be constrained within such a formalism?

One does not have to look far for an algorithm that breaks all the 
rules of a formal logistic system - for example - it is easy enough to 
invent an algorithm that behaves inconsistently - QED???


-- 
 #####  ###    ###  #   #  #   #   #
   #   #   #  #     #   #  #   #  # #
   #   #   #   ##   #####  #   # #####
#  #   #   #     #  #   #  #   # #   #
 ##     ###   ###   #   #   ###  #   #

