Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>> 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.
> I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted of
> little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains.
>  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to find
> them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor the
> original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> would
> I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we
don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it will
be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just won't
invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> 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).
> That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws, not
> our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
> Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain are
> as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point is
> that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
> building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it is
> an
> error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of computation
> that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know, we
> seem to be in the same boat.
I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can be
described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it seems
all laws are necessarily incomplete.
It is just dogma of some materialists that the universe precisely follows
laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
for it either.

Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms in
our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just give
us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will happen.
In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual precise,
deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we have
no evidence for that.

View this message in context: 
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to