> > So, a statement is meaningful if it has procedural deductive meaning. > We *understand* a statement if we are capable of carrying out the > corresponding deductive procedure. A statement is *true* if carrying > out that deductive procedure only produces more true statements. We > *believe* a statement if we not only understand it, but proceed to > apply its deductive procedure.
OK, then according to your definition, Godel's Theorem says that if humans are computable there are some things that we cannot understand ... just as, for any computer program, there are some things it can't understand. It just happens that according to your definition, a computer system can understand some fabulously uncomputable entities. But there's no contradiction there. Just like a human can, a digital theorem prover can "understand" some uncomputable entities in the sense you specify... ben g ------------------------------------------- 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
