; From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2004 6:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Are conscious beings always fallible?
>
> I agree with you. Actually you can use the second recursion theorem
> of Kleene to collapse all the orders. Thi
I agree with you. Actually you can use the second recursion theorem
of Kleene to collapse all the orders. This is easier in an untyped
programming language like (pure) LISP than in a typed language,
although some typed language have a primitive for handling untyped
self-reference, like the primitiv
How would they ever know that I wonder?
"Well let's see. I'm conscious and I'm not fallible. Therefore" ;-)
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer that can
only generate "thoughts" which are sentences derivable from some
underlying
axioms
Sorry. The mail-list server cut a phrase out of my last sentence. - Ben
Of course, one doesn't have to be pursuing an empirical question in order to
fruitfully be guided by a conjecture, but if one has the answer in one's premisses,
but the deductive path remains obscure, then one at that point
ion in order to fruitfully be guide
premisses, but the deductive path remains obscure, then one at that point has the
answer only indirectly in oneself.
- Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "David Barrett-Lennard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer that can
only generate "thoughts" which are sentences derivable from some underlying
axioms (and therefore can only generate "true" thoughts) is unable to think.
This is based on the fact that a formal system can't understand sentenc
6 matches
Mail list logo
