didn't claim that he did. All I claimed was that Goedels theorem "... shows [read: 'it is reasonable to conclude'] that there are some types of mathematical proofs that a human mathematician can demonstrate to be true, but a turing machine ( read: any current technology computer ) cannot."
Umm... when you say "theorem A shows B" it means that theorem A proves B. Not that it's "reasonable to conclude". It is "reasonable to conclude" just about anything from just about anything - because "reasonable" is a subjective term.
What prevents someone from simply setting up an online store site, complete with pictures of items and everything, and with rockbottom prices?
Run it for a week, collect credit card numbers from orders, then close shop. If you do it right, it can be untraceable.
You say this as if it is something that's 100% certain. Many intelligent people have been puzzled by qualia-like experiences and it is not at all evident that they are simply a byproduct of the neural setup/workings of the brain.
Please state specifically which part of my post is 'meaningless bable' [sic], and what is so 'overly complicated'?
Also, since you seem to be a proponent of the 'mind is just a finite state machine' idea, it would be nice if you brought some kind of proof for that assertion.
>To be quite honest, the brain does not function >on the quantum level at all. I've read several >papers postulating that there is a possibility >of this, but the sizes at which quantum effects >occur are so miniscule that they really won't >have any bearing on the physical operations of >neurons.
Ever heard of chaos theory?
Oh and the (very real) possibility that neurons form together into a feedback or amplifier system. As a very simplified example - a single neuron can be put into a quantum superposition state of transmitting/not transmitting its signal to the next neuron. What actually happens will depend on the 'collapse' of the state vector. Subsequently, the domino effect of amplification will translate this quantum occurence into a macro one.
Slashdot Mirror
... where Duncan McCloud's genes came from. But still, what was the prize??
didn't claim that he did. All I claimed was that Goedels theorem "... shows [read: 'it is reasonable to conclude'] that there are some types of mathematical proofs that a human mathematician can demonstrate to be true, but a turing machine ( read: any current technology computer ) cannot."
Umm... when you say "theorem A shows B" it means that theorem A proves B. Not that it's "reasonable to conclude". It is "reasonable to conclude" just about anything from just about anything - because "reasonable" is a subjective term.
What prevents someone from simply setting up an online store site, complete with pictures of items and everything, and with rockbottom prices? Run it for a week, collect credit card numbers from orders, then close shop. If you do it right, it can be untraceable.
You say this as if it is something that's 100% certain. Many intelligent people have been puzzled by qualia-like experiences and it is not at all evident that they are simply a byproduct of the neural setup/workings of the brain.
Please state specifically which part of my post is 'meaningless bable' [sic], and what is so 'overly complicated'? Also, since you seem to be a proponent of the 'mind is just a finite state machine' idea, it would be nice if you brought some kind of proof for that assertion.
>To be quite honest, the brain does not function
>on the quantum level at all. I've read several
>papers postulating that there is a possibility
>of this, but the sizes at which quantum effects
>occur are so miniscule that they really won't
>have any bearing on the physical operations of
>neurons.
Ever heard of chaos theory?
Oh and the (very real) possibility that neurons form together into a feedback or amplifier system. As a very simplified example - a single neuron can be put into a quantum superposition state of transmitting/not transmitting its signal to the next neuron. What actually happens will depend on the 'collapse' of the state vector. Subsequently, the domino effect of amplification will translate this quantum occurence into a macro one.