Matthias, OK, that seems fair. Perhaps you will let me get away with a weaker statement:
Since it is convenient to *pretend* that computers are Turing machines rather than finite-state machines when doing theoretical work, it is *also* convenient to pretend that Godelian limitations are all that apply to AI designs. To actually implement the thing, we need to keep the finite-state limitations in mind. As hardware improves, and *particular* finite-state inability will melt away (providing some justification for pretending that Godelian limitations are the important ones). But, of course, an infinite number of such restrictions will remain. --Abram On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The limitations of Godelian completeness/incompleteness are a subset of the > much stronger limitations of finite automata. > > If you want to build a spaceship to go to mars it is of no practical > relevance to think whether it is theoretically possible to move through > wormholes in the universe. > > I think, this comparison is adequate to evaluate the role of Gödel's theorem > for AGI. > > - Matthias ------------------------------------------- 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
