On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world of inference inductive
machine, a machine capable of being wrong is already non computably more powerful than
an error prone machine.
There's something wrong with that sentence. An
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined,
It is well
On 8/24/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate
exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson
arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of
Robinson Arithmetic.
But you cannot conclude
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
evidence/reasoning
that you yourself are not contained in that definition?
There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean
the
usual physical computer,
Why not use the notion of
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
'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
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want
into
this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters.
A sentence (any string of information) can be
Sorry, I am not going to answer to your whole post, because frankly the
points you make are not very interesting to me.
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
John Clark Aug 23 01:08PM -0400
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.
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
OK, take the sentence:
'Not all sentences have unambigous truth values - by the way you won't be
able to determine that this sentence doesn't have a unambigous truth value
by using a computer '
OK, if I changed
On 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, benjayk wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory
space.
This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it
just uses its own memory space.
What constitutes the memory space of the
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
externally.
I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it
for no
On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
externally.
I
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
evidence/reasoning
that you yourself are not contained in that definition?
There is no perfect definition of computer.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want
into
this sentence... or like the stuff that
Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers. I
think that Penrose and other did a right translation from the Gódel theorem
to a problem of a Turing machine,. But this translation can be done in a
different way.
It is possible to design a program that modify itself by
What Gödel discovered were that the set of true statements in mathematics,
(integer arithmetics) can not be demonstrated by a finite set of axioms.
And invented a way to discover axioms with means of an automatic procedure,
diagonalization, that the most basic interpreted program can perform. But
to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-21, 15:38:13
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/21/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21
On 22 Aug 2012, at 00:26, benjayk wrote:
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
-
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
: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-21, 18:08:08
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 00:26, benjayk wrote:
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
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote:
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
On 22 Aug 2012, at 12:17, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 00:26, benjayk wrote:
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
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the
computer
is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of
high-level
activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For
example, no
video exists in the computer -
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the
computer
is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of
high-level
activity, because this is
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
Benjamin
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the
computer
is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of
high-level
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine a computer without an output. Now,
On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]
Is the following statement
It's a simple logical paradox, an AI could play the same game by asking:
Is the following statement true? 'This statement can't be confirmed to
be true solely by utilizing a human brain'.
Saibal
Citeren benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com:
In this post I present an example of a
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
On 8/21/2012 9:54 AM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a
Dear Benjayk,
Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?
On 8/21/2012 12:54 PM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a
On 21 Aug 2012, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
LOL.
Of course, Clark is right, you should add consistently before
confirmed, to avoid the refutation of a human claiming confirming that
sentence. Or put consistent
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
Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Benjayk,
Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?
I guess so, yet it seems more specific. At least it was more obvious to me
than the usual arguments against AI. I haven't really read anything by
Penrose, except maybe some excerpts,
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
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
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
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
On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:18 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
It is true as well. We can even confirm it to ourselves.
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a human
brain'. We can see its true, but whatever knows this, can't (solely) be the
brain
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
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,
101 - 153 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
