On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> John Clark-12 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk > >> > <[email protected]>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. > > > It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the universal dovetailer. > 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. > So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for humans to be creative? > > 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. > They place bounds on what can happen. For example conservation of mass, momentum, charge, etc. And all possibilities do happen. > In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise > laws. > 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. > We have better than evidence, there is actually a logical argument that demonstrates the CI idea (that there is a single universe with collapse) is not possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
