Thread: Neural Incompleteness Theorem

I don't think learning makes a difference. Learning is just changing the system around. At any one point in time, the system is what the system is, and does what it can do; and then the argument above applies.

Note that the system in my argument is not necessarily simple. The first appendix alone may have to be very complex. We are yet to create a program which understands how addition works, and to be able to itself write a program that performs addition. The only computer we know capable of doing this currently is the human brain.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think learning makes a difference. Learning is just changing the system around. At any one point in time, the system is what the system is, and does what it can do; and then the argument above applies.

Note that the system in my argument is not necessarily simple. The first appendix alone may have to be very complex. We are yet to create a program which understands how addition works, and to be able to itself write a program that performs addition. The only computer we know capable of doing this currently is the human brain.

Theoretically, though, there is nothing keeping a computer from being programmed to have creativity and a capacity for independent learning. Then it could understand all of the principles used to create it, and then proove it by writing scripts and programs of it's own. How would the above argument apply then?