Le 13-août-06, à 23:48, George Levy a écrit :

> "I think" also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the
> first step "I think" and that you are sane, you can't take any rational
> and conscious second step and have any rational and conscious thought
> process. You wouldn't be able to hold any rational discussion. Inherent
> in any computational process is the concept of sanity. Maybe this is
> what Bruno refers to as "sane machine."

All right. The point will be that all machine strongly-believing or 
communicating or proving their own sanity will appear to be (from 
purely number-theoretical reasons) insane and even inconsistent. Note 
that machines communicating that they are *insane* (instead of sane) 
*are* insane, but remains consistent.
This should please crazy John Mikes :)



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to