On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk

> > 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> programming a computer'

If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement
PERIOD. Any limitation a computer has you have the exact same limitation.
And there are many many times the ONLY way to determine the truth of a
statement is by programming a computer, if this were not true nobody would
bother building computers and it wouldn't be a trillion dollar industry.

> 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.

But it's only a matter of time before computers start programing you
because computers get twice as smart every 18 months and people do not.

> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them)

That is certainly not true, if it were there would be no point in
instructing computers about anything. Tell me this, if you instructed a
computer to find the first even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum
of two primes greater than 2 and then stop what will the computer do? It
would take you less than 5 minutes to write such a program so tell me, will
it ever stop?

> 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).

We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because
of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random.

> Let's take your example "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert
> this sentence' is true.".
> I can just say your sentence is meaningless.

It's not my example it's your example, you said sentences like this prove
that you have fundamental abilities that computers lack, and that of course
is nonsense. Saying something is meaningless does not make it so, but
suppose it is; well, computers can come up with meaningless gibberish as
easily as people can.

>The computer can't do this, because he doesn't know what meaningless is

I see absolutely no evidence of that. If you were competing with the
computer Watson on Jeopardy and the category was  "meaningless stuff" I'll
bet Watson would kick your ass. But then he'd beat you (or me) in ANY

> Maybe that is what dinstinguishes human intelligence from computers.
> Computers can't recognize meaninglessness or meaning.

Humans often have the same difficulty, just consider how many people on
this list think "free will" means something.

> My computer doesn't generate such questions

But other computers can and do.

> and I won't program it to.

But other people will.

  John K Clark

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