On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Travis replied to me: >> I see no reason that the proof is only for machines, it also applies >> to methods or procedures that involve one or more people. > > If those people follow an algorithm. Humans can decide not to > do that. If computers deviate from their program, that must be > programmed to start with. >
If the human isn't following an algorithm, they're merely guessing. Merely guessing isn't a proof, so they haven't solved the problem. >> If you require a solution to the halting problem as a proof of >> intelligence, then I can easily prove that intelligence cannot exist >> by your definition. I would consider that proof to be sufficient to >> make your definition useless. > > I think the halting problem is just one example for a class of > problems where computers (as we know them) fail and humans can > succeed (or not). It's a an example of a problem that can't be solved by computation, whether that computation is mechanical or biological. If you hold that mentation isn't computation, then they might be solvable by that extra-computational mentation. But then you've got to demonstrate that mentation isn't computation, or you're merely throwing up your hands and saying "It's magick!". -- David Scheidt [email protected] _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
