Bruno Marchal wrote:
>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 :)
>
>
This only proves that a "sane" machine cannot be sure that it thinks
correctly.
So the sane machine would say: "I think but, since I may be insane, I
am not sure if I am."
Only the insane machine would positively assert "I think therefore I am!"
So we know now where Descartes belongs: in an insane asylum, so do most
philosophers, religious leaders and politicians. Some mathematicians may
be exempt, but only if they don't claim that Godel is right!
Don't quote me!
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 14:44:37 PDT