Le 13-août-06, à 23:48, George Levy a écrit :
> "I think" also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the
> first step "I think" and that you are sane, you can't take any rational
> and conscious second step and have any rational and conscious thought
> process. You wouldn't be able to hold any rational discussion. Inherent
> in any computational process is the concept of sanity. Maybe this is
> what Bruno refers to as "sane machine."
All right. The point will be that all machine strongly-believing or
communicating or proving their own sanity will appear to be (from
purely number-theoretical reasons) insane and even inconsistent. Note
that machines communicating that they are *insane* (instead of sane)
*are* insane, but remains consistent.
This should please crazy John Mikes :)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 15 2006 - 07:22:48 PDT