Strange, i have the opposite problem, i'm constantly buying clothes hangers and they're always disappearing, which makes me wonder if there's some rip in space-time in my closet that keeps whisking my hangers away to other people's closets...
Hey, that gives me an idea. If we could somehow hook up the tear in the back of the dryer to the one in the closet, our problems would be solved, all the missing socks would end up in the closet, and all the missing hangers would end up in the dryer
Even though some humans tell themselves they can, we can't conceive infinity. We can imagine concieving it, and we can describe some of its qualities and come to some valid conclusions about it, but we will never truly/completely experience it, conceptually or otherwise. But does infinity actually exist? If not, there is a "last thing" or "edge", or other limit (in a closed-curved space, the longest path. Again, we can concieve it, but we can't actually "do" it. Also: my personal favorite the "chaotic range", the implicit region "outside" our universe of participatorially relative items. Relativity implies it, and big-bang theories require it (for steady-state, see infinity). Trying to imagine the chaotic range is a favorite hobby of mine.. and I come up against a kind of wall, where I know what I want to think is just on the other side, but I can't go there: that is, my thoughts will not meet the requirements to qualify for mapping to that place.
Actually, all Godel says is that you (may) have to go outside of things to be able to describe them accurately and completely (or: derive them from completely internal axioms). But since we (can) evolve as individuals, and are (hopefully) only a step in an evolutionary sequence, we (as a species) may generate a "next" species that can completely understand us. In this context, an AI device would only count if it were to act on the information it generated. And I would argue that if we were to comprehend such a conclusion from any source (external or internal) such conclusion would constitute an evolutionary step.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that gives me an idea. If we could somehow hook up the tear in the back of the dryer to the one in the closet, our problems would be solved, all the missing socks would end up in the closet, and all the missing hangers would end up in the dryer
Actually, all Godel says is that you (may) have to go outside of things to be able to describe them accurately and completely (or: derive them from completely internal axioms). But since we (can) evolve as individuals, and are (hopefully) only a step in an evolutionary sequence, we (as a species) may generate a "next" species that can completely understand us. In this context, an AI device would only count if it were to act on the information it generated. And I would argue that if we were to comprehend such a conclusion from any source (external or internal) such conclusion would constitute an evolutionary step.