Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!ucbernie!tedrick
From: tedrick@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness)
Message-ID: <10642@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 02:53:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10642
Posted: Mon Oct 14 02:53:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 07:35:06 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17
Keywords: Turing machines vs. the mind

>Ie. maybe a Turing machine can simulate the brain, but ...

OK, here is a question.

My understanding is that Godel's incompleteness theorems prove
(assuming the consistency of Arithmetic) that no Turing machine
can possibly simulate the human mind.

This is because for any particular Turing machine there are certain
statements that the human mind can recognize as true (again with
the consistency assumption), that the machine cannot recognize
as true.

Does anyone dispute this?

   -Tom
    tedrick@ucbernie.ARPA