From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:45:12 GMT

In article <32836011.EEB@ix.netcom.com>,
Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>Jim Balter wrote:
>> 
>> In article <32829D25.3464@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>> >and its not just buggy.  If the Lucas view of Godel is to be taken seriously,
>> 
>> The Lucas view of Godel is trivially wrong, since it ignores the fact that
>> Godel incompleteness only applies to *consistent* systems.  For this and other
>> reasons (e.g., finiteness), Godel has no relevance to systems in the real
>> world.
>> --
>> 
>
>Trivially?  The penalty for disobeying the strategic logic of natural 
>selection is death.  That's about as non-trivial as you can get?

Wipe off your glasses and your brain and look at that word "since".  I said
nothing about death being trivial; this sort of failure of logic and relevance
may explain some of the reactions to your work.

>Quote:
>
>The short answer [to Lucas/Godel] is that, although it is established  
>that there are limitation to the powers of any particular machine,
>it has only been stated, without any sort of proof, that no such 
>limitations apply to human intellect (A.M. Turing).

And thus Lucas is trivially wrong that Godel proves that machines cannot match
humans.  Duh.

--