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
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at