> It doesn't, because **I see no evidence that humans can > understand the semantics of formal system in X in any sense that > a digital computer program cannot**
I agree with you there. Our disagreement is about what formal systems a computer can understand. (The rest of your post seems to depend on this, so I will leave it there for the moment.) > > Whatever this mysterious "understanding" is that you believe you > possess, **it cannot be communicated to me in language or > mathematics**. Because any series of symbols you give me, could > equally well be produced by some being without this mysterious > "understanding". > > Can you describe any possible finite set of finite-precision observations > that could provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis that you possess > this posited "understanding", and against the hypothesis that you are > something equivalent to a digital computer? > > I think you cannot. > > So, your belief in this posited "understanding" has nothing to do with > science, it's > basically a kind of religious faith, it seems to me... '-) > > -- Ben G > > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
