> 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 just argued that humans can't understand the totality of any formal system X 
due to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem but the rest of this is worth addressing 
. . . . 

> 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".

Excellent!  Except for the fact that the probability of the being *continuing* 
to emit those symbols without this "mysterious understanding" rapidly 
approaches zero.  So I'm going to argue that understanding *can* effectively be 
communicated/determined.  Arguing otherwise is effectively arguing for 
vanishingly small probabilities in infinities (and why I hate most arguments 
involving AIXI as proving *anything* except absolute limits c.f. Matt Mahoney 
and compression = intelligence).

I'm going to continue arguing that understanding exactly equates to having a 
competent domain model and being able to communicate about it (i.e. that there 
is no mystery about understanding -- other than not understanding it ;-).

> 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.

But I would argue that this is because a digital computer can have 
understanding (and must and will in order to be an AGI).

>> 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... '-)

If you're assuming that humans have it and computers can't, then I have to 
strenuously agree.  There is no data (that I am aware of) to support this 
conclusion so it's pure faith, not science.




-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to