>>11364659Neither of those "state the impossibility of self-reference." You're talking about incompleteness (you can always define another term that wasn't already part of the system you were working with by defining it in terms of what you already have).
In Richard's paradox it's incompleteness in the sense of having words describing numbers like "the square root of twenty-five," being able to refer to these descriptions and order them by the properties of their descriptions (e.g. N0 is "the square root of twenty-five" and can be ordered before a description N1 of "what seven minus one equals" alphabetically), and then being able to generate a new number defined by those defined numbers after the fact in a way that couldn't have been in your system until you already had those definitions available to define a new number off of.
In Rice's theorem it's not being able to have a program give an answer for shit like "if this program is unable to return 1, return 1."
None of this is anything biological / non-mechanical computational approaches have a special ability for that AI is unable to match unless you buy into the fringe quantum mind crap that Penrose has been pushing in his later years. You can walk through these problems and find they're just logically not things that you can give an answer on without changing what the "right" answer is and making your attempted answer no longer valid.
