For any formal definition of intelligence, there will exist a form of
intelligence that is not covered by that definition because intelligence is
non-trivial/complex enough to invoke Gödel's theorem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] definitions of intelligence, again?!
Mark Waser wrote:
But there is a second type of definition that tries to *formalize* what
the subject is, and that is where my challenge was really directed.
I believe that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem basically renders this form
of your challenge impossible.
Okay, now I have to figure out which level of the argument your comment
was directed at ..... ;-)
I am not trying to *prove* that formalized proofs of intelligence cannot
be true, so that can't be it ..... unlike Kurt, I have an Empirical
Science bunker located right behind me, into which I can jump at the least
sign of trouble..... :-).
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
