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 :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
