Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBI4IB.Js5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3t0tn4$p32@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBD193.Iv5@netcom.com> <3tp764$110@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:08:35 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 52
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29833 sci.logic:12092

In article <3tp764$110@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <jqbDBD193.Iv5@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <3t0tn4$p32@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>>Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>				        How would `human mathematical
>>>>intuition' arrive at true statements that could never be calculated
>>>>by the above machine?
>
>>>Humans have arrived at such statements--continue with your reading of
>>>Rucker IATM and you'll see some--and frankly, no one really knows how.
>
>>So much gibberish, so little time.
>
>So few refutations from the Balter.

A refutation of "Humans have arrived ..."?  That is gibberish that needs
no refutation.  What does "arriving at" consist of?  Give us a definition
in a refutable form.

>>Goedel-limited robots could "arrive" at such statements, they could "see"
>>that they are true, they could "believe" that they are true, they could
>>"know" that they are true, they just couldn't *prove* that they are true.
>>Just like human mathematicians.
>
>Words are cheap.  Do you have any "evidence" that robots could do the
>above?  It appears to contradict Goedel's theorem.

Arriving consists of anouncing "I have arrived".  Seeing consists of
announcing "I see".  Believing consists of announcing "I believe".  These are
all, as David Longley will tell you at length, intensional terms.  Thus Goedel
has nothing to say about them.  "Knowing" consists of having a justified
belief that happens to be true.  Pehaps you have a Goedelian proof that robots
cannot have beliefs or justifications.  I'd like to see it.  "It appears to
contradict Goedel's theorem."  is hogwash and shows that you don't understand
Goedel or ontology.

>>"tick, tick, tick, ... arrive!"
>
>You know the words, but you don't know the music.  You can't even hum a
>bar without tripping, in fact.

A typical irrational response from the Wienerdude.  Incessant bleating does
not an argument make.  Humans have arrived at unprovable true statements.
Like, they got to them and then sat down.  Or they walked right up to them and
stopped.  Or something.  Whatever the something is, you won't find Goedel saying
that computational robots can't scream "Eureka!" too.


-- 
<J Q B>

