Proof of human superiority relies on proof of consistency
Newman and Nagel's thesis results from a misapplication of Gödel’s theorem (see detailed text).
Although it's true—as Newman and Nagel claim— that a machine can't prove some undecidable propositions, a human can't prove those propositions either, unless he or she can first prove that the machine is consistent.

But is unlikely that a human would ever be able to carry out such a consistency proof unless the machine were very simple.

Hilary Putnam (1960).

Note: Also, see the "Is the use of consistency in the Lucas argument problematic?" arguments on this map.
Immediately related elementsHow this works
-
Artificial Intelligence »Artificial Intelligence
Are thinking computers mathematically possible? [7] »Are thinking computers mathematically possible? [7]
No: computers are limited by Gödel's theorems »No: computers are limited by Gödel's theorems
Theorems show limitations of machine thought »Theorems show limitations of machine thought
Mathematical thought can't be fully formalised »Mathematical thought can't be fully formalised
Proof of human superiority relies on proof of consistency
A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof »A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof
Hilary Putnam »Hilary Putnam
+Kommentare (0)
+Verweise (0)
+About