A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof
To defeat Newman and Nagel's thesis, Putnam must show that the consistency of the machine is absolutely undecidable. But there are no absolutely undecidable propositions in arithmetic.
The best Putnam can offer is the unlikelihood of being able to show that the machine in question is inconsistent.

But the fact that it is unlikely that we can show that a machine is consistent doesn't mean that the machine is in fact inconsistent.

Thomas Tymoczko (1990).
CONTEXT(Help)
-
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 »Proof of human superiority relies on proof of consistency
■
A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About