On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
relatively slow and
regards, The Computer
Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you, depending
on how you program it.
There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is true or
false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.
In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-value of
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can reach
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is something
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.
Not really. You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be computed" and "what a
computer does". You're supposing that a computer cannot have the reflexive inference
capability to "see" that the statement is true. Yet you're also supposing that when we
"see" it is true that that is not a computation. As Bruno would say, you are just
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do hypercomputation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at