Hi benjayk One cannot tell whether one is a monad dreaming he is a human, or a human dreaming he is a monad.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 18:26:33 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers 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: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331938.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.