John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> 
>> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
>>
> 
>> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.
>>
> 
> 
> Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence without
> demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but a
> computer can:
> 
> "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
> 
> If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert
> this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> asserting
> something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all
> true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is a
> limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that from
a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
difference.

Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
empirical:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a
computer' 

Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my problem
in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because
the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't
answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you
can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it shows you
that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because you
are the one programming it.

Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them),
if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them. 

You might say we only do what we were instructed to do by the laws of
nature, but this would be merely a metaphor, not an actual fact (the laws of
nature are just our approach of describing the world, not something that is
somehow actually programming us).


John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
> "The point is that there is no way for the computer to determine either
>> question (mine or yours), without relying on us."
> 
> 
> Please explain how replacing the words " Benjamin Jakubik" with "the
> computer" in the sentence in question or any other makes a fundamental
> difference.
Let's take your example "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this
sentence' is true.".
I can just say your sentence is meaningless.
The computer can't do this, because he doesn't know what meaningless is,
either and using your computer you won't figure it out (just try to programm
meaninglessness into a computer :) ).

So if you try to solve my sentence using your computer, you might simply
conclude that it is meaningless. But in this case it is still practically
true that you couldn't confirm it using your computer, you could only see
its meaningless by yourself. So it doesn't change my conclusion.

Maybe that is what dinstinguishes human intelligence from computers.
Computers can't recognize meaninglessness or meaning. For them everything
could be true if you just programmed it into them.


John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>> The universe is fine, it just cannot be caputured computationally.
>>
> 
> Perhaps the entire universe cannot be captured computationally but you can
> be. You have not demonstrated that the computer has fundamental
> limitations
> that you do not. Whatever challenge you throw at the computer it can just
> change the words "computer" to "Benjamin Jakubik" and throw a equally
> challenging sentence right back at you. The situation is completely
> symmetrical.
No, certainly not, it is anything but symmetrical. My computer doesn't
generate such questions and I won't program it to. It simply lacks the power
to bother me with such questions. If it did, I would simply reprogram it,
reinstall my software or buy a new computer.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335440.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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to