Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <DBq3x2.Ery@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3tjrr2$4ft@cnn.Princeton.EDU> <3u2hha$p8h@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> <DBo5Kp <3u55fg$8g5@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 20:36:38 GMT
Lines: 155
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30207 sci.logic:12421

In article <3u55fg$8g5@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>,
Burt Voorhees <burt@cs.athabascau.ca> wrote:
>>In article <3u2hha$p8h@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>,
>>Burt Voorhees <burt@cs.athabascau.ca> wrote:
.............
>AP>Isn't this a contradiction? If certain things are able to causally affect
>us,
>>then we can know about them.
>>>
>
>Not so.  Things could simply happen at random, and appear to
>us with no reliable pattern and no predictability.  All we know

I do not see as a problem. What you describe is very much like a situation
with quantum mechanical phenomena. 
>are the effects on us, the cause would be unknowable.  The

May be there would be no cause? This is one of interpretation of QM
pecularities.

>usual human response in situations like this is to latch onto
>some belief system which provides comfort by claiming to tell
>us how to relate to the unknowable.  Further, since what can be

Not necessarily, see above.

>known (on the basis of strong AI + Godel) is finite, the unknowable
>will be infinite.  Dante painted a grim picture of this situation

I do not understand what you mean by this (see below).

>by depicting human reason as casting only a dim circle of light
>in the darkness of hell (only faith he claimed could get one
>through the night).
>
>AP>>>This is certainly an incorrect idea, we definitely also need observations.
>>>>Armchair philosophy just won't do it.
>>>
>BV>>This is not "arm chair philosophy."  Before you go around making snide
>>>comments about philosophy perhaps you should become familiar with some.
>
>AP>I have seen enough to keep away from the most of it.
>
>So you haven't really understood what the basic issues are?

Ther is of course a possibility that I have had and it is mainly gibberish.

>I don't mean just being able to parrot them back, but really
>had a clear comprehension, as well as learning how to sift the wheat
>from the chaff.  With philosophy (as with much else):
>
>"Counterfit can only exist when there is real gold."
>                                        Rumi
>
I am not the only one with such an opinion of much of philosophy. I subscribe
to Wittgenstein's view that most of philosophical "questions" result from
misuse of words, which creates an impression that that a given combination
means something whereas it really does not (see above).

>BV>>The basis of science was the idea that the world is a cosmos; i.e.,
>>>a rationally ordered unified structure, and that the human mind
>>>could comprehend this order through reason (that includes experiment,
>>>observation, etc.)  This assumption would seem to fail if we accept
>>>both strong AI and the Godel results.  (There are ways out, but they
>>>are also a bit strange in their implications.)  This, it seems to me,
>
>>The idea that cosmos is "a rationally ordered unified structure and that
>>the human mind could comprehend this order through reason (that includes
>>experiment, observation, etc.) is akin to assuming that we are a pinacle of
>>the cosmos.
>>Unbelievable arrogance.
>
>This from somebody who has already showed their ignorance of and
>distain for philosophy?
>
Firstly, these two objects of alleged arrogance differ substantially.
Secondly, is philosophy a holy cow which cannot be criticised? Will you
dismiss Wittgenstein's croticism as arrogance too?

>There is no need to assume that we are the "crown of creation"
>to assume that mind can comprehend the order of the cosmos.
>Arrogance is generally found only in the ignorant, although

You are right, assuming that Earth is in the centre of the Universe was
a result og ignorance. Try to extrapolate.

>to them somebody who has some degree of understanding may
>appear arrogant.  I recall a comment once to the effect that
>somebody who knew how to make fire without having to rub two sticks
>together, and who said this to somebody who did not have this
>knowledge, might well appear arrogant.  ("How does he have the
>right to say he can do something that I can't do!")
>
>But I digress.  The question is whether or not it is possible
>for us as human beings to understand the order of the universe,
>assuming that such order exists.  The combination of strong AI
>and Godel's theorem suggests that perhaps we cannot, and this
>raises serious questions.  Penrose has choosen to address these
        ^^^^^^^
What you mean by "serious"

>with a rejection of strong AI. But most of the people involved
>in criticizing or defending strong AI and/or Penrose seem to be
>completely ignorant of the deep issue which needs to be addressed.
>It's something like arguing about who has the winning hand at
>poker while the house is on fire.
>
Your analogy seems to imply that something could be done about the "serious"
consequences of "AI+Goedel". Do you think so?
If we cannot do anything about the house being on fire, we may just as well
continue playing poker, don't you think so? Or do you subscribe to the
attitude "if I can't live forever, I'll kill myself"?

>For a more coherent discussion of this I suggest that you read
>the paper I have coming out in _Complexity_ sometime in the
>reasonably near future.  Sorry, no file on line.
>
Perhaps you could let me know when it is out. There are too many journals
to keep an eye on all of them.

>My offer th channel information from beyond the Godel horizon
>(for a suitable fee) remains open.  It's certainly got to be at
>least as good as the Psychic hot lines I see showing up in tv ads
>now.
>
I am sure it would, but I'd rather buy a lottery ticket.

>>>is the thought behind Penrose's otherwise only "cute" tale at the
>>>beginning and end of Shadows of Mind.
>
>To be read with the thought of Plato's cave
>in the back of ones mind. (Requires some
>knowledge of philosophy to fit together,
>however.)
>
I do know about Plato's cave.

Andrzej
>
>bv                                      I've had my sight fooled often
>                                        enough that I now attempt to
>                                        keep a careful balance of mutual
>                                        checking between thinking and
>                                        seeing.  Doesn't seem like that
>                                        good an idea to reject half of
>                                        one's capacities.


You keep repeating the obvious. The question is what do you put more stake in
in case of disagreement.
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
