On 22 Aug 2012, at 00:26, benjayk wrote:
No, I don't supppose that it does. It results from the fact that we
contradiction if the computer could see that the statement is true
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
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we
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.
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you,
on how you program it.
There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is
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-
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.
Not really. You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be
and "what a
computer does". You're supposing that a computer cannot have the
capability to "see" that the statement is true.
had to compute it, which is all it can do).
A computer can do much more than computing. It can do proving,
defining, inductive inference (guessing), and many other things. You
might say that all this is, at some lower level, still computation,
but then this can be said for us too, and that would be a confusion of
level. The fact that a computer is universal for computation does not
imply logically that a computer can do only computations. You could
say that a brain can only do electrical spiking, or that molecules can
only do electron sharing.
No. It can't be a computation, since if it were a computation we
conclude it is true (as this would be a contradiction, as I showed
Unless you reject binary logic, but I am sure the problem also
Yet you're also supposing that when we
"see" it is true that that is not a computation.
other logics. I might try this later.
As Bruno would say, you are just
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do
I didn't say hypercomputation. Just something beyond computation.
Comp makes consciousness and universes beyond computations.
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