Hi Stephen P. King 

I may just be showing my ignorance, but...

Isn't that problematic statement simply an example of Godel's theorem ? 
Or Russell's insistence that a set cannot refer to itself ?

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-21, 15:38:13
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/21/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012  benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> 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, 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; and yet a human being,  Benjamin Jakubik, is unable to perform this 
task, a task that even the smallest computer can do with ease.  

  John K Clark   

    How would this work when it is the computer itself that is named and not 
some third party such as Ben?



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

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

Reply via email to