Shane Legg wrote:
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.
Yes, but these statements are all about "intelligence" as defined by the
formal definition itself.
You and Mark are both trying to corrupt the formal definitions from
within their own terms of reference.
I don't care about that kind of attack, because I have already corrupted
the formal definition by attacking it from the outside: talking about
the nonexistent relationship of formal definitions to the real world of
*actual* intelligent systems (in the commonsense definition of the word).
So in that sense this is all Godelian dead-horse flogging.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
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
