Let's solve a riddle - Page 2

Quicksilver · #11 11-12-2006, 11:54 AM

What did you expect? It was 1:00am. Now the spelling has been corrected.

Actually i don't make the rules regarding this paradox. So i'm not claiming to be right but indeed passing on information which has been established long before both you and i. Will add the links later gotta go.

Sponsored Links

ifly · #12 11-12-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

What did you expect? It was 1:00am. Now the spelling has been corrected.

Actually i don't make the rules regarding this paradox. So i'm not claiming to be right but indeed passing on information which has been established long before both you and i. Will add the links later gotta go.

No probs here, I thought this was a friendly discussion.

Thunder22 · #13 11-12-2006, 01:24 PM

Are you reading Sartre too? the whole "picturing yourself on a bus, looking out the window watching yourself running for the bus" thing fascinated me back in Philosophy 101 in college. still can't do it

ifly · #14 11-12-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

Are you reading Sartre too? the whole "picturing yourself on a bus, looking out the window watching yourself running for the bus" thing fascinated me back in Philosophy 101 in college. still can't do it

Which one?

The Transcendence of the Ego was my favorite written after his military service. Mind blowing.

Thunder22 · #15 11-12-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifly

Which one?

The Transcendence of the Ego was my favorite written after his military service. Mind blowing.

Being and Nothingness.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Nothingn.../dp/0671867806

flip_x · #16 11-13-2006, 02:06 AM

Heres one for you guys!!!

Your in a solid concret square room 4ft thick every direction (up down left right) there is three items in the room with you.. its a Chain Saw, Table, and a Fork..... how do you get out???? and u cant dig out or use the chain saw to get out either its too thick..

Heres another one

Whats yellow and looks like a bucket??

hehe tell u the answer tommorow or later!!!

Quicksilver · #17 11-13-2006, 02:45 AM

Sure it is.

Sorry if i gave the wrong impression but friendly sarcastic i am sometime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ifly

No probs here, I thought this was a friendly discussion.

hell0 · #18 11-13-2006, 02:48 AM

There was a man one night. He started to run straight forward. Then he turned left. Soon after, he turned left again. Then he started running toward home. When he got home there were 2
masked men waiting for him. Who were they?

Quicksilver · #19 11-13-2006, 02:59 AM

If your asking me then the answer is no. This all started because i started to pickup reading where i left off in a book that's a difficult read regarding "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem". It was a preface to arguments regarding artificial intelligence. But heres part of what it covers.

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules an axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

And here's the part you referenced,

The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally. http://web.archive.org/web/200308061...org/godel.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

Are you reading Sartre too? the whole "picturing yourself on a bus, looking out the window watching yourself running for the bus" thing fascinated me back in Philosophy 101 in college. still can't do it

ifly · #20 11-13-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

If your asking me then the answer is no. This all started because i started to pickup reading where i left off in a book that's a difficult read regarding "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem". It was a preface to arguments regarding artificial intelligence. But heres part of what it covers.

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules an axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

And here's the part you referenced,

The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally. http://web.archive.org/web/200308061...org/godel.html

Quick,

if you are looking at AI theorem and the ability to understand the mechanics of creating a computer that mirrors the mental mechanics of a human being you're on the right track. Did a lot of this metaphysical stuff years ago and boy it has not changed that much because the basis for most of it is still in the writings of a few scholars whose theories have so far proven correct or the technology is still at a state where they may be proven wrong.

I used to work in Defense Avionics and our task was to work out how to defeat the enemies latest technologies we used some of the teachings that you are probably reading to introduce models around possible areas to defeat the tech. its amazing what a bit of Math and positive out of the box thinking can achieve.

Sponsored Links