Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- From: "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Nov 2005 01:03:03 -0800
Daryl McCullough wrote:
> The problem is that what is r.e. is the set of possible
> *behaviors* of the robot. We don't have a foolproof means
> of determining what "unassailable beliefs" are implied
> by that behavior. So we can't go from an r.e. set of
> behaviors to an r.e. set of "unassailable beliefs".
>
> Or, at least I don't see any way to extract the set of
> unassailable beliefs from the robot's program. Without
> such an extraction procedure, Penrose' argument can't
> even get started.
>
Penrose's suggestion was that the robot could prefix a star to those
sentences it believed unassailably. Are you suggesting there might be
things the robot unassailably believes but doesn't prefix a star to?
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- References:
- Penrose vs the Robot
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Penrose vs the Robot
- Prev by Date: Re: The MetaMathematical Theorem that Almost Was
- Next by Date: Re: What is the 1st order formal system known as PA?
- Previous by thread: Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- Next by thread: Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading