> On 6 May 2019, at 14:02, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:19 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > This is essentially the point that both Turing and Goedel made when they > > pointed out that human consciousness is not Turing emulable -- it involves > > intuitive leaps that are not algorithmic, presumable coming from an > > uncodable environment. > > Turing was interested in intelligence and, being a scientist, he knew he > couldn't say anything about consciousness unless he made the assumption that > observable intelligent behavior implies consciousness.
But that was due to the influence of the young Wittgenstein and the whole Vienna philosophy (positivism). Today this is shown false, as there is a theory explains consciousness, and verified by facts. Positivism represents the peak of the idea that theology and metaphysics cannot be done with the scientific attitude. It influenced also Niels Bohr and the founder of quantum mechanics. Wittgenstein is sum up with his “what we cannot talk about should not be talked about”, but that is self-defeating (What are you talking about Mr Wittgenstein?). > And deductive logic is not the only sort of logic there is, there is also > inductive logic and there is no reason a Turing Machine can't be programed > for that too and they certainly have been, that's how Chess and GO programs > are able to make what any Grand Master would call brilliant intuitive moves. > Deductive logic is reliable but although even more useful than deduction > inductive logic is just a rule of thumb, and that is why a intuitive leap can > sometimes turn out to be brilliant and sometimes it can be dead wrong. > > As for Godel, I don't think the philosophical musings he made after about > 1955 when his only friend Albert Einstein died are worth much, there is no > pleasant way to say this but the poor man went nuts. Only the late years. Gödel was interested in theology since his youth, and understood (like me) that physics does not even address the question. Einstein, who is a rare scientist “theologically sane”— he was aware that his Aristotelian faith was a religious/theological faith, begun to change his mind on Aristotle Naturalism in his last year by discussing with Gödel. I mean, he realised that Mathematics has something to say about the fundamental inquiry. Gödel suffered a paranoïa a long time after Einstein was already dead. Bruno > > John K Clark > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FBC2D3AD-7584-48E8-9357-D4A6446ED3DF%40ulb.ac.be. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
