RE: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound

From: Bradley Thomas (
Date: Wed Oct 14 2009 - 14:21:39 MDT

I have no argument on the profundity of Turing and Godels work. You say a
fixed-goal mind left to its own devices in a finite state machine is
destined to get bored*. I have no disagreement with that either but simply
fail to see how that is dependent on either Turing or Godel's work.

* "left to its own devices" in the sense that it never receives unpatterned
input or intervention.
"bored" in the sense that it must eventually enter an infinite (patterned,
cyclic) loop or halt

Brad Thomas
Twitter @bradleymthomas, @instansa

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of John K Clark
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:41 PM
To: sl4 sl4
Subject: Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 "Marc Warner" <> said:

> John - Why are your arguments about infinite loops limited to fixed
> goal minds? It seems that within your framework, a non-fixed goal mind
> would still be a Turing machine and susceptible to the same infinite
> loops.

In a real mind all goals are ephemeral, real minds have a wonderful property
that fictional fixed goal minds don't have, real minds get board. Your top
goal is to try something, nothing is happening, you drum your fingers and
say to hell with this, so now you have a new top goal and try that.

 John K Clark

  John K Clark
-- - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT