On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:53:59PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > For me the question has always been how does one "overcome > Incompleteness" when it is impossible for a simulated system to be identical > to its simulator unless the two are one and the same.
Is it though? If the simulated system is different from the original, then indeed I would agree with you. In the case of human self-awareness, I thought it was implemented not by simulation as such, but by decoupling the actual inputs and outputs from the real world, and then feeding the scenario input into the actual brain circuit, and examine the output _without_ actually moving a muscle. It has something to do with the "mirror" neurons, and it really is quite a neat trick (at least Dennett thinks so, and I tend to agree). Not being into supernatural explanations, I think a perfectly mechanical, or formal model should be able to capture this ability. But how to do it without running into infinite regress is the challenge. And if and when we have this formal model, we can then see whether this idea of solving incompleteness has any merit. I'm as sceptical as anyone, but I do believe the case is more subtle than to be destroyed by a couple of lines of handwaving argument :). Cheers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
