Eric, According to your argument, there are some cases in which you could demonstrate that I was producing outputs that could not be generated by the specific computer that is **my brain** according to our current understanding of my brain.
However, this would not demonstrate that the source is noncomputational. There are other possible explanations, such as the explanation that there is some more powerful computer somewhere generating the outputs, in a way that we don't currently understand. So the question then becomes how would you distinguish between the hypothesis of a hidden noncomputational source, and a hidden more-powerful-computer source? Again, you need to make this distinction using a finite set of finite-precision observations.... And so my argument then applies again to this additional set of observations.... So I don't see that you have really provided a counterexample. However, I can see the value of formalizing my argument mathematically so as to avoid the appearance of such loopholes... ben g On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> You have not convinced me that you can do anything a computer can't do. > >> And, using language or math, you never will -- because any finite set of > symbols > >> you can utter, could also be uttered by some computational system. > >> -- Ben G > > I have the sense that this argument is not air tight, because I can > imagine a zero-knowledge proof that you can do something a computer > can't do. > > Any finite set of symbols you utter *could*, of course, be utterable by > some computational system, but if they are generated in response to > queries that are not known in advance, it might be arbitrarily unlikely > that they *would* be uttered by any particular computational system. > > For example, to make this concrete and airtight, I can add a time element. > Say I compute offline the answers to a large number of > problems that, if one were to solve them with a computation, > provably could only be solved by extremely long sequential > computations, each longer than any sequential computation > that a computer that could > possibly be built out of the matter in your brain could compute in an hour, > and I present you these problems and you answer 10000 of them in half > an hour. At this point, I am going, I think, to be pursuaded that you > are doing something that can not be captured by a Turing machine. > > Not that I believe, of course, that you can do anything a computer > can't do. I'm just saying, the above argument is not a proof that, > if you could, it could not be demonstrated. > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
