Re: Godel

Dear Steven (is that what I should call you?)

Thank you for making a more intelligable
clarification of your point.

I read some stuff from Penrose carefully
some years ago now. Although people seem to have
bad things to say about him, I found no fault with
the man on _his_ argument. I do question his claim on
microtubials, but that is a different part of his
argument from the one under discussion now. It would
be better that he be here to defend himself.

Steven
>Goedel's theorem hardly proves that the human mind is not algorithmic.
>

There are empirical and theoretical issues. Desire
for a woman, chocalate, or sleep are different problems
from "why am I here" or "to believe in Jesus".

Steven
>(I don't know what is meant by the claim that the human mind is algorithmic, but that is a seperate issue)
>

At the core of a computer are registers containing
binary data, a processing ciruit like a parallel
adder, an accumulator and a multiplier. Variations
on a theme generate the rest of the story such as
a Xeon or a Pentium.

These carry out binary arithmatic operations such
as 0001+0001 = 0010. Any higher languages such as
C, Java, Lisp, etc. must ultimately formulate their
instructions in the form of binary instructions.

An algorithm is a systematic process for solving
a problem. It has rules that involve logical
instructions. It can (in principle) be coded into
a computer with some kind of higher langauge to
fulfill an objective.

Steven
>Suppose we build the World's Only Mechanistic Algorithmic Network or W.O.M.A.N for short.

Wayne:
You mean a Turing machine? What is this WOMAN?

Steven
>
>We take the sentence 'A WOMAN cannot prove this sentence is true', and code, or Goedelise it, into a statement about number theory.
>
>Clearly the WOMAN cannot prove the statement about number theory, or else that would be equivalent to proving that she cannot prove the statement.

Wayne:
Since I don't know what WOMAN is, I don't know clearly
what WOMAN can or can't do. I only so far know that
you claim WOMAM can Godelise statements.

Steven
>
>Equally clearly both the sentence and the resultant theorem about number theory are true. A man can prove that it is true, but a WOMAN can not.
>

wayne
Suddenly, man appears on the scene.

Steven
>Should we conclude that a WOMAN cannot be conscious or have a human mind, in the way that a man can?
>

Wayne:
I'm not sure I really get your argument. So far
you simply state what seems to be Penrose' point.
You have some machine that operates using formal
instructions. Some axioms on which your machine
operate are true, but cannot be proven. Your
machine cannot solve every problem.

By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Thu Mar 31 10:45:25 2005