Minds,Maschines and Gödel Flashcards
What is the Gödel formula. What does this prove false according to Lucas?
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems state that in any consistent formal system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system (thus making the system not complete/ not everything can be proven or disproven.)
Lucas states that this disproves (anthropic) mechanism: everything about human beings can be completely explained in mechanical terms, as surely as can everything about clocks or the internal combustion engine
In every machine there is a truth which it cannot prove, which a mind can see that it is true. A machine is eccentially dead and a brain alive.
Why is it important for Lucas that humans are consistent?
The Gödel formula only works for consistent systems. If humans weren’t consistent, a mechanical human mind would also be inconsistent and thus not bothered by Gödel.
How does Lucan argue for humans being consistent ?
Our inconsistencies are mistakes. If we were inconsistent, we would be content with our inconsistencies and affirm two halves of a contradiction at the same time. In inconsistent systems anything is provable.
Humans are not inconsistent systems, but display inconsistencies because they are fallible.
What is according to Lucas the main aspect of the Gödel formulas?
Self- referrence and self awareness.
What would Lucas reply to a highly complex intelligent maschine?
That it is no longer a maschine in the sense of it working according to mechanical principles (us being able to understand the operations in terms of of the operations of it’s parts) thus again disproving mechanism.
How have other philosophers and cognitive scientists,, responded to Lucas’s argument? What are some key points of agreement or disagreement?
John Searle, through his Chinese Room argument, critiques the idea that computational systems can have genuine understanding, aligning with Lucas’s view that there is a fundamental difference between human minds and machines. However, Searle focuses more on the nature of understanding rather than Gödelian propositions.
Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” addresses the potential for machines to exhibit intelligent behavior
Dennett, Daniel C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Dennett argues for a materialist functionalist view of consciousness, suggesting that self-reference and consciousness could emerge from complex computational processes.
Dennett, argues that Gödel’s results apply only to formal systems and do not necessarily extend to biological systems like the brain. Dennett suggests that while our brains might be computational, they are not bound by the same rules as formal mathematical systems because of their complex, evolving, and adaptive nature. (where he might agree with Lucas )
Putnam saying that human minds are inconsistent maschines.
What could speak against Lucas?
You cannot recognize your own Gödel sentence (if there is one), it doesn’t say sth. about not being able to recognize others Gödel sentences.
-> Humans are not consistent.
