4 ms·

Could humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? On a

Could humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? On a different plane could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well?

TelmoMenezes 8y ago
> Could humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? At least parts of our brain, for sure. It is clear that we can improve some of our own learning algorithms. Everything that is innate, no (or not yet). For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. > If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? Good question. I'm not sure humanity has a utility function, so even though it clearly can self-modify, the question might be nonsensical. > On a different plane could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? A think evolution is recursively a Gödel machine. It learns how to create things that become better at learning how to create things that... Also, certain innovations fundamentally change the game, e.g. the emergence of genders.
- iamcurious 8y ago
  > For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. That is very brainist of you.
lukifer 8y ago
> could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? I would say so. See also: Gaia Hypothesis [0], and the Big History project [1]. Arguably, biological evolution is but one layer in a self-improving information-energy complexity stack, which has now achieved sufficient stability to provide a foundation for ecosystems of technological and memetic evolution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy,_thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy...
yongjik 8y ago
I think that's stretching the analogy too much. Basically, we might say cows are spherical objects if we want to solve some problems in classical mechanics, but you won't gain much insights about how cows actually work by assuming they are spherical objects. Same thing here, IMHO.
- naasking 8y ago
  Not so much as you might think. Didn't we invent math and progressively improve it, and then invent computers to automate the math we suck at precisely to extend our problem solving powers? There are a lot of similarities.
  - zwkrt 8y ago
    We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA), and if we do we still have to prove that the "re-written" person is more capable of re-writing subsequent people in an even more efficient way.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      > We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Well... other than that one time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy
    - visarga 8y ago
      We are rewriting our API and OS (language, culture) all the time, though.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Interpreting "code" as "DNA" is too literal. It could apply to thinking processes and mental models, cultural and social norms, and so on. A universal Turing machine (UTM) can mimic any other Turing machine via interpretation, including a Godel machine. So an interpreted Godel machine isn't changing the code of the UTM, the analogue of our DNA, but it's changing the interpreted code, the analogue of higher level processes like those I list above.
Jeff_Brown 8y ago
If you reduce the definition to "something that gets better", then yes. But for a learning machine to really qualify, it has to be getting better by proving that the next state is better than the current state before adopting it.
- schoen 8y ago
  Not only do human beings not do this, but we actually exhibit inconsistency, change our goals unpredictably, and can be deceived by ourselves or others about our goals and motives.
  - visarga 8y ago
    Yeah, we're more like reinforcement learning agents than Godel machines. If something apparently works, we do it, even when it is not supported by reason. What matters is to learn to act in such a way as to continue to exist, not to learn the truth. Of course we have to reconcile with reality when we stray too much. Humanity has flourished long before we invented the scientific method, and even today we're not applying it universally.
temporalparts 8y ago
I think yes. On a human level, we experiment and modify our biology constantly, eg vaccines and working out. On a humanity level, we're researching gene editing and gene therapy, and historically had appalling theories that led to genocide, which, in its roots, was about changing humanity's fundamental code. Proving gene editing is currently slow and expensive so it takes a long time gain confidence in result to make such a change.

TelmoMenezes 8y ago

> Could humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? At least parts of our brain, for sure. It is clear that we can improve some of our own learning algorithms. Everything that is innate, no (or not yet). For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. > If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? Good question. I'm not sure humanity has a utility function, so even though it clearly can self-modify, the question might be nonsensical. > On a different plane could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? A think evolution is recursively a Gödel machine. It learns how to create things that become better at learning how to create things that... Also, certain innovations fundamentally change the game, e.g. the emergence of genders.

iamcurious 8y ago
> For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. That is very brainist of you.

lukifer 8y ago

> could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? I would say so. See also: Gaia Hypothesis [0], and the Big History project [1]. Arguably, biological evolution is but one layer in a self-improving information-energy complexity stack, which has now achieved sufficient stability to provide a foundation for ecosystems of technological and memetic evolution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy,_thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy...

yongjik 8y ago

I think that's stretching the analogy too much. Basically, we might say cows are spherical objects if we want to solve some problems in classical mechanics, but you won't gain much insights about how cows actually work by assuming they are spherical objects. Same thing here, IMHO.

naasking 8y ago
Not so much as you might think. Didn't we invent math and progressively improve it, and then invent computers to automate the math we suck at precisely to extend our problem solving powers? There are a lot of similarities.
- zwkrt 8y ago
  We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA), and if we do we still have to prove that the "re-written" person is more capable of re-writing subsequent people in an even more efficient way.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    > We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Well... other than that one time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_and_Nana_controversy
  - visarga 8y ago
    We are rewriting our API and OS (language, culture) all the time, though.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > We have not yet rewritten any of our own code (i.e., DNA) Interpreting "code" as "DNA" is too literal. It could apply to thinking processes and mental models, cultural and social norms, and so on. A universal Turing machine (UTM) can mimic any other Turing machine via interpretation, including a Godel machine. So an interpreted Godel machine isn't changing the code of the UTM, the analogue of our DNA, but it's changing the interpreted code, the analogue of higher level processes like those I list above.

Jeff_Brown 8y ago

If you reduce the definition to "something that gets better", then yes. But for a learning machine to really qualify, it has to be getting better by proving that the next state is better than the current state before adopting it.

schoen 8y ago
Not only do human beings not do this, but we actually exhibit inconsistency, change our goals unpredictably, and can be deceived by ourselves or others about our goals and motives.
- visarga 8y ago
  Yeah, we're more like reinforcement learning agents than Godel machines. If something apparently works, we do it, even when it is not supported by reason. What matters is to learn to act in such a way as to continue to exist, not to learn the truth. Of course we have to reconcile with reality when we stray too much. Humanity has flourished long before we invented the scientific method, and even today we're not applying it universally.

temporalparts 8y ago

I think yes. On a human level, we experiment and modify our biology constantly, eg vaccines and working out. On a humanity level, we're researching gene editing and gene therapy, and historically had appalling theories that led to genocide, which, in its roots, was about changing humanity's fundamental code. Proving gene editing is currently slow and expensive so it takes a long time gain confidence in result to make such a change.