[HN Gopher] Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Its Implications ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Its Implications for Artificial
       Intelligence
        
       Author : behnamoh
       Score  : 14 points
       Date   : 2022-09-12 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sabinasz.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sabinasz.net)
        
       | eynsham wrote:
       | This is something of an anecdatum, but of the formally trained
       | philosophers and logicians I know, none regard arguments of the
       | sort Lucas/Penrose advance as viable.
        
         | gizajob wrote:
         | Can any of them programme computers?
        
           | eynsham wrote:
           | Some of them, but they don't do it much. But they have quite
           | good maths/TCS knowledge overall (one did part III maths at
           | Cambridge, one seems to know all of Barendegt's lambda calc
           | book...)
        
       | boxmonster wrote:
       | It's funny how the mind is mathematical to mathematicians, a
       | compartmentalized system to psychologists, an engineering system
       | to neuroscientists, a small representation of God to religious
       | people, an emotional system to artists, etc... like the parable
       | of the blind men and the elephant.
       | 
       | I sometimes wonder if our minds can create the reality we wish to
       | some extent so we all live in our own universes.
        
         | ianai wrote:
         | I studied math in undergrad with a philosophy minor. To me, it
         | was pretty clear that math absolutely was 'alien'/foreign to
         | the human brain. It's clearly very useful, but human brains are
         | not inherently capable of grasping it. (But they can learn
         | remarkably well...) Notably, Godel died by malnutrition after
         | convincing himself he was being poisoned or misled about
         | reality.
         | 
         | Psychologists seem like semi-empirical philosophers.
         | Philosophers seemed, usually, to be conveying their world views
         | in their writings. They'd claim universality, sometimes. Other
         | times, the arguments seemed almost pathologically designed to
         | shirk criticism in the most trivial, petty ways (thinking of
         | you, solipsism) - and we should really all just move on from
         | them to more meaningful discourse.
         | 
         | [Engineers should be trusted with absolutely nothing but the
         | exact problem space their disciplines have proven reliable.
         | They're like children, at worst.]
         | 
         | Nonetheless, I suspect Godel's incompleteness theorem may be a
         | sort of logical breakthrough the ramifications from which are
         | still not properly explored.
        
       | kbelder wrote:
       | There are no implications from Godel's theorem that apply to AI
       | that do not also apply to people.
        
         | benlivengood wrote:
         | I think that is the point of Chalmer's response to Penrose,
         | referred to the article. [0]
         | 
         | [0] https://consc.net/papers/penrose.html
        
           | lupire wrote:
           | Yes, the article is a form of clickbait, posing a bad premise
           | and then citing a debunking.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-12 23:02 UTC)