Thread: Neural Incompleteness Theorem

DuB: that post was pretty much as clear as you can come to perfection.

Yes, the argument does beg the question. If we consider the argument in the context of humans, what is being argued (incorrectly) is that humans may be able to understand how most of their brain operates, but they won't be able to understand their understanding.

Although I have a hunch that understanding understanding may prove the most intractable by far, potentially insurmountably so, this is only an assertion as it stands.

Photolysis: same as DuB.

People talking about the issue of comprehension: this isn't really problematic. I assume that comprehension is well defined, and is something that the human brain can do; as the human brain can be represented by an algorithm, there's no conceptual problem with a system which understands another system.

Yeah good points guys!

Originally Posted by Xei

People talking about the issue of comprehension: this isn't really problematic. I assume that comprehension is well defined, and is something that the human brain can do; as the human brain can be represented by an algorithm, there's no conceptual problem with a system which understands another system.

Comprehension can occur on many different levels though. Understand how something works, in what way? Understand something to what degree, or in what context? Maybe give an example of what kind of concept/algorithm it would be.

Example: humans try to understand the universe, but they have many different methods of understanding of how it works. Of course, it doesn't need to be that complex, but be aware of the possible differences of how something can be understood by a brain/system.