• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Godel disprove the idea of artificial intelligence?

Interesting Ian said:
What?? We're not talking about reacting, but rather seeing the truth of some assertion.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I said that Trvth is a mutable concept. There is no "THE" truth. Something You hold true at 20 may at 30 not be . Two similar people looking at the same idea may have vastly separated ideas of what is true. You may conceder it akin to moral relativism but the reality is that the judgment of the correctness of an idea or situation IS a reaction to stimuli based of learned values.
 
69dodge, let's consider this argument in a nutshell.

Let's consider the greatest, intelligent, knowledgeable mind they could conceivably possibly be. Now, in order for that mind to be a Turing machine, anyone or anything can dream up a sufficiently complex algorithm to see if they can model it. If they cannot, then they can come up with another algorithm to see if they can model it, if they still cannot, then they try yet again. They keep doing this until they succeed. I will accept that the eventual success will entail that we are all Turing machines. If they never succeed even after an unlimited number of tries (albeit not an infinite number of tries) i.e one can try as many algorithms as it takes and for them to be as complex as it takes, then the notion that minds are Turing machines is refuted.

But why cannot normal minds like my own, or yours, not be Turing machines even if this greatest conceivable mind is not?

The answer to this is that it would be very strange for some minds to be Turing machines but not others. Whatever minds might be, you would not expect my mind to be a Turing machine for example, but your mind not to be! Likewise you would not expect my mind to be a Turing machine, but the greatest possible mind not to be a Turing machine!
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Exactly why I said that Trvth is a mutable concept. There is no "THE" truth. Something You hold true at 20 may at 30 not be . Two similar people looking at the same idea may have vastly separated ideas of what is true. You may conceder it akin to moral relativism but the reality is that the judgment of the correctness of an idea or situation IS a reaction to stimuli based of learned values.
Click to expand...

I cannot debate with someone who says there is no such thing as the truth. Clearly there sometimes is, even if only in logic and mathematics! And I would say there is the truth in everything; even in ethics (not that this is relevant -- so long as there are THE Truth in mathematics).
 
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's consider the greatest, intelligent, knowledgeable mind they could conceivably possibly be. Now, in order for that mind to be a Turing machine, anyone or anything can dream up a sufficiently complex algorithm to see if they can model it. If they cannot, then they can come up with another algorithm to see if they can model it, if they still cannot, then they try yet again. They keep doing this until they succeed. I will accept that the eventual success will entail that we are all Turing machines. If they never succeed even after an unlimited number of tries (albeit not an infinite number of tries) i.e one can try as many algorithms as it takes and for them to be as complex as it takes, then the notion that minds are Turing machines is refuted.
Click to expand...
Ok. Although there's no reason to try more than once, really. If any Turing machine works, just try that one first.

Either way, why shouldn't some Turing machine work?

And I don't think there's any such thing as "the greatest possible mind" to begin with. Kind of like there's no such thing as "the largest possible integer".
 
If you're declaring it would be conscious, I say that we need to understand what consciousness is first before trying to create it. - I Ian
Click to expand...

Many great discoveries came about 'by accident' long before we understood the underlying science. I agree that it would be advisable to understand consciousness before creating artificial (human) life (I'm a big fan of 'B' scifi movies), and it may even be an ethical mandate, but understanding something is not a developmental constraint. :)

Gödel's theorem probably has a philosophical component within it that says we cannot create artificial intelligence like 'computers' of today: finite pathways create limitations on data, even if we do not perceive the limitations.

The Incompleteness theorem says nothing about something like growing or developing artificial life, only that human-like artificial life would not be like a computer as we know it.

I suspect that insisting on comparing the brain of an artificial life form to a computer is a straw man. There is a real sense that living things are a manifestation of their environment: We evolved here, and belong here and are an integral part of here. We cannot exist apart from the ecology of our universe and neither could human-like artificial life.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I cannot debate with someone who says there is no such thing as the truth. Clearly there sometimes is, even if only in logic and mathematics! And I would say there is the truth in everything; even in ethics (not that this is relevant -- so long as there are THE Truth in mathematics).
Click to expand...

Logic and mathematics are both attempts toward an accommodation where we as humans can quantify and qualify the universe around us. Mathematics comes closer to a rule set that is fairly concrete but even there we can distort and manipulate the language to say pretty much what we want it to. Ex. .99999...=1 or using imaginary numbers (Sqrt -1) to balance equations.

That on a primary school level is nonsense both logically and mathematically , but it is ultimately true when we progress in our understanding of the language. You can torture logic to say anything..logic and "truth" do not have to have any common ground.
So if You know any great immutable truths , please tell me what they are as the only one I know is " And this too shall pass".



edit to add:
To think of "intelligence as "AN" algorithm is not the correct approach in modeling or mimicking Human behavior or processes. The more correct understanding would be..MPP Massively Parallel Processing, where there are several distinct processes occurring at the same time, all considered and weighted by an overall rule set then a course of action or judgment is arrived upon.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Logic and mathematics are both attempts toward an accommodation where we as humans can quantify and qualify the universe around us. Mathematics comes closer to a rule set that is fairly concrete but even there we can distort and manipulate the language to say pretty much what we want it to. Ex. .99999...=1 or using imaginary numbers (Sqrt -1) to balance equations.

That on a primary school level is nonsense both logically and mathematically , but it is ultimately true when we progress in our understanding of the language. You can torture logic to say anything..logic and "truth" do not have to have any common ground.
So if You know any great immutable truths , please tell me what they are as the only one I know is " And this too shall pass".
Click to expand...

We all need to apprehend the timeless perfection of all existence. Then we will all know the truth.
 
69dodge said:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's consider the greatest, intelligent, knowledgeable mind they could conceivably possibly be. Now, in order for that mind to be a Turing machine, anyone or anything can dream up a sufficiently complex algorithm to see if they can model it. If they cannot, then they can come up with another algorithm to see if they can model it, if they still cannot, then they try yet again. They keep doing this until they succeed. I will accept that the eventual success will entail that we are all Turing machines. If they never succeed even after an unlimited number of tries (albeit not an infinite number of tries) i.e one can try as many algorithms as it takes and for them to be as complex as it takes, then the notion that minds are Turing machines is refuted.

69dodge
Ok. Although there's no reason to try more than once, really. If any Turing machine works, just try that one first.

Either way, why shouldn't some Turing machine work?

And I don't think there's any such thing as "the greatest possible mind" to begin with. Kind of like there's no such thing as "the largest possible integer".
Click to expand...

I agree with you that there is no such thing as "the greatest possible mind". Let's just say that a mind needs to be great enough that it apprehends all mathematical truths. Now of course the AI enthusiasts will maintain, indeed must maintain, that no matter how great a mind is there will always be some mathematical truth that it is unable to see/derive. This must be so if any mind is nothing more than the execution of some algorithm. But then of course we come full circle.

It seems that we can recognise some truths that are not arrived at by an algorithmic process. We can see something is true even though a computer cannot i.e. Goedelian sentences. Or consider how mathematicians sometimes discover new mathematical truths. They often declare that it is a moment of insight. They suddenly know , beyond doubt, its truth -- only afterwards do they produce the proof of that which they already know.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
edit to add:
To think of "intelligence as "AN" algorithm is not the correct approach in modeling or mimicking Human behavior or processes. The more correct understanding would be..MPP Massively Parallel Processing, where there are several distinct processes occurring at the same time, all considered and weighted by an overall rule set then a course of action or judgment is arrived upon. [/B]
Click to expand...

You mean the execution of more than one algorithm at once? That obviously does nothing to defeat the argument. 2 algorithms are no more capable of producing a miracle than one algorithm.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Logic and mathematics are both attempts toward an accommodation where we as humans can quantify and qualify the universe around us. Mathematics comes closer to a rule set that is fairly concrete but even there we can distort and manipulate the language to say pretty much what we want it to. Ex. .99999...=1 or using imaginary numbers (Sqrt -1) to balance equations.
Click to expand...

I do not understand how that is distorting or manipulating language.

That on a primary school level is nonsense both logically and mathematically , but it is ultimately true when we progress in our understanding of the language. You can torture logic to say anything..logic and "truth" do not have to have any common ground.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Logic is logic. You can't distort it to say anything else apart from that which is deductively derived.

So if You know any great immutable truths , please tell me what they are as the only one I know is " And this too shall pass".
Click to expand...

Certainly.

I am conscious.
1 + 1 = 2.
0.9999 . . . = 1
 
Interesting Ian said:


I don't think so. Logic is logic. You can't distort it to say anything else apart from that which is deductively derived.

Ian , any real study of logic includes concederation of "Logical Fallacies". Inductive, deductive, categorical syllogisms, argument by analogy , so on Ad Nausium.
There are many and some that call into question as to the efficacy of applying logic at all to the question at hand. I.E. counterfactuals, an attempt to accommodate the non-logical outcome of quantum mechanics with real life observation.

Certainly.

I am conscious.
1 + 1 = 2.
0.9999 . . . = 1 [/B]
Click to expand...

Any of which can be disproved I.E : "I am conscious". How do I know that? You may have passed out from drinking too much by the time I read your post or maybe you while typing on Your reply on Your wireless laptop got hit by a car and are actually dead when I read this. Maybe "You" are an intelligent bot. Any of which negates your declaration that You are conscious, heck how about solipsism? You only exist in my mind ? Silly I agree but as viable a concept as Your declaration of self awareness on a ephemeral medium such as the net. No Ian , logic is plastic as much as math.
On a thread I started "prove 1=2"
-1/1 = 1/(-1)

Take the square root of both sides:
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)

i/1 = 1/i

Divide by 2: i/2 = 1/(2i)
Add 3/(2i): i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i)+ 3/(2i)
Multiply by i:
i^2/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2
-1/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2
1 = 2
There are other more creative examples.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48997&highlight=prove

I'm not quite sure what motivates You to engage in these bottomless debates , since most of the concepts expressed at the beginning of the threads are fairly straight forward and do not require the reductionism and tangential arguments that are finally realized by the Nth post and finally, not reaching accommodation, left to rot on the vine.. Perhaps you enjoy typing
more then most?

You may believe what You want, that does not however make it true.
 
Is that comment Experiential or anecdotal? Someone mentioned that such examples are not empirical proof.
 
He he , in answer to your question -Yes.
I see your humor organ is larger then I estimated, but I'm not sure of the standing of cross forum poaching .
 
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't think so. Logic is logic. You can't distort it to say anything else apart from that which is deductively derived.


TillEulenspiegel
Ian , any real study of logic includes concederation of "Logical Fallacies". Inductive, deductive, categorical syllogisms, argument by analogy , so on Ad Nausium.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed this is so if you conflate informal and formal logic. I understood we were simply referring to formal logic. Now could you be so good as to state what your point is?

There are many and some that call into question as to the efficacy of applying logic at all to the question at hand. I.E. counterfactuals, an attempt to accommodate the non-logical outcome of quantum mechanics with real life observation.
Click to expand...

There is no "non-logical" outcome of quantum mechanics; it's all in your fevered imagination.

Certainly.

I am conscious.
1 + 1 = 2.
0.9999 . . . = 1 [/B]


TillEulenspiegel
Any of which can be disproved
Click to expand...

I think not.

I.E : "I am conscious". How do I know that? You may have passed out from drinking too much by the time I read your post or maybe you while typing on Your reply on Your wireless laptop got hit by a car and are actually dead when I read this. Maybe "You" are an intelligent bot. Any of which negates your declaration that You are conscious,
Click to expand...

It does not. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I am conscious.

heck how about solipsism? You only exist in my mind ? Silly I agree but as viable a concept as Your declaration of self awareness on a ephemeral medium such as the net. No Ian , logic is plastic as much as math.
Click to expand...

I think not.

On a thread I started "prove 1=2"
-1/1 = 1/(-1)

Take the square root of both sides:
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)

i/1 = 1/i

Divide by 2: i/2 = 1/(2i)
Add 3/(2i): i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i)+ 3/(2i)
Multiply by i:
i^2/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2
-1/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2
1 = 2
There are other more creative examples.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...highlight=prove
Click to expand...

I really have no interest in these games. I'm willing to bet that this reasoning is fallacious at some point. Now, I do not have any knowledge of mathematics, so I cannot point out the error, but this is supremely unimportant. The point is that it is fallacious. Now, do you have a point to make?

I'm not quite sure what motivates You to engage in these bottomless debates , since most of the concepts expressed at the beginning of the threads are fairly straight forward and do not require the reductionism and tangential arguments that are finally realized by the Nth post and finally, not reaching accommodation, left to rot on the vine.. Perhaps you enjoy typing
more then most?
Click to expand...

It is a "bottomless" debate because either I, or my opponents, or both sides, do not fully understand the intricacies of the argument. If you think that this whole debate is a waste of time, then so be it; but there again, nobody is asking you. If we adopt your attitude nobody would ever discuss anything contentious. Personally I feel this is undesirable.
 
Originally posted by Kopji
Gödel's theorem probably has a philosophical component within it that says we cannot create artificial intelligence like 'computers' of today:
Click to expand...
I don't agree.
finite pathways create limitations on data, even if we do not perceive the limitations.
Click to expand...
Computers are limited but so are we.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom