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 :).


A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
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 

Reply via email to