Re: Robot Evolution
- From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:23:11 -0500 (EST)
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
I have always thought the Godel argument
constitutes a pretty good ARGUMENT against a
computational view of the mind.
Why on earth so? All Goedel proved was that
mathematics was (necessarily) incomplete, not that
it was useless.
Incomplete from the perspective of proving theorems,
but not incomplete from the standpoint of the mind's
ability to "see" truth.
My knowledge of women is similarly incomplete. That
doesn't make that knowledge useless, it just means
that I need to check my work pretty carefully before
building structures that depend on my being correct.
I have no idea how uselessness enters the picture.
The fact that one consider's Godel a pretty good
argument that "minds are different from machines"
(Lucas) is far from useless, particularly if it
turns out to be true, in that it would mean that
we would finally be able to rid ourselves of the
strangehold mechanistic materialism has had on
the soft sciences for the past seventy five years
or so. I think that would be very useful indeed.
PR
.
- References:
- Re: Robot Evolution
- From: Kent Paul Dolan
- Re: Robot Evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Robot Evolution
- Next by Date: == meta == limits of computation as a limit of "mind" (still: Robot Evolution)
- Previous by thread: Re: Robot Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Robot Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
