The Frame Problem, Gödelian Incompleteness, and the Lucas-Penrose Argument: A Structural Analysis of Arguments About Limits of AI, and Its Physical and Metaphysical Consequences

In Vincent C. Müller (ed.), Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence 2017. Berlin: Springer (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The frame problem is a fundamental challenge in AI, and the Lucas-Penrose argument is supposed to show a limitation of AI if it is successful at all. Here we discuss both of them from a unified Gödelian point of view. We give an informational reformulation of the frame problem, which turns out to be tightly intertwined with the nature of Gödelian incompleteness in the sense that they both hinge upon the finitarity condition of agents or systems, without which their alleged limitations can readily be overcome, and that they can both be seen as instances of the fundamental discrepancy between finitary beings and infinitary reality. We then revisit the Lucas-Penrose argument, elaborating a version of it which indicates the impossibility of information physics or the computational theory of the universe. It turns out through a finer analysis that if the Lucas-Penrose argument is accepted then information physics is impossible too; the possibility of AI or the computational theory of the mind is thus linked with the possibility of information physics or the computational theory of the universe. We finally reconsider the Penrose’s Quantum Mind Thesis in light of recent advances in quantum modelling of cognition, giving a structural reformulation of it and thereby shedding new light on what is problematic in the Quantum Mind Thesis. Overall, we consider it promising to link the computational theory of the mind with the computational theory of the universe; their integration would allow us to go beyond the Cartesian dualism, giving, in particular, an incarnation of Chalmers’ double-aspect theory of information.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Yesterday’s Algorithm: Penrose and the Gödel Argument.William Seager - 2003 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
Mechanism, truth, and Penrose's new argument.Stewart Shapiro - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
McCall’s Gödelian Argument is Invalid.Panu Raatikainen - 2002 - Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
Minds, Machines and Gödel.J. R. Lucas - 1961 - Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
Remarks on Penrose’s “New Argument”.Per Lindström - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Penrose's new argument.Per Lindström - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
Mind the truth: Penrose's new step in the Gödelian argument.Salvatore Guccione - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (3):612-613.
A note on verification.Frederick C. Copleston - 1950 - Mind 59 (236):522-529.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-01-28

Downloads
25 (#595,425)

6 months
8 (#283,518)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references