Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2606 talk.philosophy.misc:1569
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1755@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 16 Nov 88 13:34:27 GMT
References: <490@soleil.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 19

In article <490@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes:
>
>Finite machines cannot understand "infinity".
>
Are human beings not finite?
Are they not machines?
If they are not machines, then how do they differ?
What is it about this difference that allows us to understand infinity?

Since you made this assertion, I must assume you have some belief
or evidence to back it up, would you please provide it?  If the
answer is "I don't know", then how do you know that the essence
of understanding infinity isn't mechanical?

>For the concept of "infinity" to have any meaning at all you MUST have the
>computational strength of reality.

I don't understand this statement.  What computational strength does reality
have?  Are computers not as real as humans?