meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
>> meekerdb wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>>> meekerdb wrote:
>>>>> "This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."
>>>>> The Computer
>>>> 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
>>> error prone.
>>> 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. 
No, I don't supppose that it does. It results from the fact that we get a
contradiction if the computer could see that the statement is true (since it
had to compute it, which is all it can do).

meekerdb wrote:
>  Yet you're also supposing that when we 
> "see" it is true that that is not a computation.
No. It can't be a computation, since if it were a computation we couldn't
conclude it is true (as this would be a contradiction, as I showed above).
Unless you reject binary logic, but I am sure the problem also arises in
other logics. I might try this later.

meekerdb wrote:
>   As Bruno would say, you are just 
> rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do
> hypercomputation.
I didn't say hypercomputation. Just something beyond computation.

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