John Clark-12 wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012  benjayk <> wrote:
>> In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
>> solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
>> intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]
>> Is the following statement true?
>> 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
>> computer'
> The following statement is without question true:
> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence"
> A computer would have no difficulty in asserting this true statement,

I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:

"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.

Yet the entity Benjamin Jakubik can't confirm this sentence by itself. It
can only express the truth that something beyond the person Benjamin is
seeing (which it is, since I - not solely being the person - can recognize
the truth of the statement and express it through Benjamin, who is merely
saying it, not recognizing its truth).

That is not the point. The point is that there is no way for the computer to
determine either question (mine or yours), without relying on us. The
computer could easily be programed to say that the statement is true or
false. Yet we can determine whether it is true, at least to some extent.

John Clark-12 wrote:
>  in fact every one of you is looking at a computer  now doing that simple
> task
> right now, and yet there is no logical paradox that threatens to tear the
> universe apart;
I didn't say anything to that effect. The universe is fine, it just cannot
be caputured computationally. This just may tear the universe as the
materialists imagine it to be apart.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to