I didn't say anything about true. I said "not covered by that definition".
While I have no problem with your definition and even accept that it may be clearer -- I think that it is exactly analogous to mine since "cannot be proven" and "not covered" are the same. ----- Original Message ----- From: Shane Legg To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] definitions of intelligence, again?! Mark, Gödel's theorem does not say that something is not true, but rather that it cannot be proven to be true even though it is true. Thus I think that the analogue of Gödel's theorem here would be something more like: For any formal definition of intelligence there will exist a form of intelligence that cannot be proven to be intelligent even though it is intelligent. Cheers Shane ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
