Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Victor Eijkhout: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:19:42 -0500
Curt Welch wrote:
>
> Actually it's easy to refute and hard to defend. If I say, "we are not
> machines, we are conscious and machines are not, and never can be", how can
> you prove me wrong? All you can really do is say "no, that's not true".
>
> That AI debate is 50+ years old and no one has settled it.
And no one will. In point of fact you cannot prove than anyone but you
has a "mind". The only things you can observe about other people are
1. Their behaviour.
2. Their physical makeup.
3. Some of the chemical and electrical processes.
What do you notice about this list? Consciousness and mind is not on it.
You cannot establish by empricial means that anyone but you has a mind.
The rest of us can be very complicated zombies. Or maybe there is not
difference between being a complicated zombie and having a mind. Maybe
there is no such thing as a mind. After all, humans have been slicing
each other open for over 10,000 years and no one has ever found a mind.
> Yeah, that is how I think. And I take it a step further and say infinity
> is not even possible. But this is clearly not how everyone looks at this.
Is there a largest integer? What is it? Add one and be ashamed.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Victor Eijkhout: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|