Yasha Savelyev

Yasha Savelyev

We first partly develop a mathematical notion of stable consistency intended to reflect the actual consistency property of human beings. Then we give a generalization of the first and second Gödel incompleteness theorem to stably $1,2$-consistent formal systems. Our argument in particular re-proves the original incompleteness theorems from first principles, using Turing machine language to (computably) construct our "Gödel sentence" directly, in particular we do not use the diagonal lemma, nor any meta-logic, with the proof naturally formalizable in set theory. In practice such a stably consistent formal system could be meant to represent the mathematical output of humanity evolving in time, so that the above gives a formalization of a famous disjunction of Gödel, obstructing computability of intelligence.

Yasha Savelyev

We revisit the question (most famously) initiated by Turing: can human intelligence be completely modeled by a Turing machine? We show that the answer is \emph{no}, assuming a certain weak soundness hypothesis. More specifically we show that at least some meaningful thought processes of the brain cannot be Turing computable. In particular some physical processes are not Turing computable, which is not entirely expected. There are some similarities of our argument with the well known Lucas-Penrose argument, but we work purely on the level of Turing machines, and do not use Gödel's incompleteness theorem or any direct analogue. Instead we construct directly and use a weak analogue of a Gödel statement for a certain system which involves our human, this allows us to side-step some (possible) meta-logical issues with their argument.