Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 00:28, Jason Resch wrote: That reminded me of this: I, Kerry Wendell Thornley, KSC, JFK Assassin, Bull Goose of Limbo, Recreational Director of the Wilhelm Reich Athletic Club, Assistant Philosopher, President of the Universal Successionist Association (USA), Chairper

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be used as an argument here. "Normally"?? The holographic principle was extracted from general relativity and the Bekenstein bound. I don't know in what sense it "s

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 02:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers. Indeed, as Judson Webb showed the anti-mechanism argument based on Gödel is double edged, when made precise enough it becomes a tool making possible to the machine to ov

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 23 Aug 2012, at 18:11, benjayk wrote: Or how can you determine whether to program a particular program or not? To do this computationally you would need another program, but how do you determine if this is the correct one? You don't. In theoretical inductive inference theory (Putnam, G

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 23 Aug 2012, at 16:52, Jason Resch wrote: The holographic principle places a finite bound on the amount of physical information that there can be in a fixed volume. This implies there is a finite number of possible brain states and infinite precision cannot be a requirement for the ope

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:53:10 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg >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 bu

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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, and many incompatible theories are proposed for it, an

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> 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. >>

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk wrote: > 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 uni

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> 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..

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> 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? >> >> >>> >> >> >> T

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 16:53:10 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On Thu, Aug 23, 2012? Craig Weinberg wrote: > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 addin

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > 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 o

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > 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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg > 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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg 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 reason. I think Lewis

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, benjayk wrote: 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 "by using a computer" to "

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

> > >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. T

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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)

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk wrote: > > '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 th

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >>

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk >> >> > wrote: >> >> >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk >>> wrote: >>> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >>>

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> John Clark-12 wrote:

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> John Clark-12 wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk >> >> > wrote: >> >> >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the > >> >> computer > >> >> is doing

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> John Clark-12 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> I have no difficulty asserting this s

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> John Clark-12 wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: >> >> >> > >> >> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistentl

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > John Clark-12 wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: > >> > > > >> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true. > >> > > >

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > 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 define

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

John Clark-12 wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk > 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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk 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 somethi

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 huma

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

benjayk wrote: > > Is the following statement true? > 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a > computer' > Imagine a computer trying to solve this problem: > If it says yes, it leads to a contradiction, since a computer has been > trying to confirm it, so its answer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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." >>> >>>

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 hum

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

ent - From: meekerdb Receiver: 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 conf

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

he following content - 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 8/21/2

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 r

Re: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

27;s no God, we'd have 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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, benjayk 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, depending > on how you program it.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:18 AM, benjayk 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 (since this would lead to a

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 t

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 be confirmed to be true by a human being." > > The Computer > He might be right in saying that (See my respons

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." The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could i

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 know

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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, t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

John Clark-12 wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 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 computer. [...] >> >> Is the following sta

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Saibal Mitra-2 wrote: > > 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'. > It is true as well. We can even confirm it to ourselves. 'This stateme

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 "consisten

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/21/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 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 tr

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 com

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

"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 co

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

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 : In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily) sol

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 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 computer. [...] > > Is the following statement true? > 'This statement can't

<    1   2