Hi Stephen P. King I may just be showing my ignorance, but...
Isn't that problematic statement simply an example of Godel's theorem ? Or Russell's insistence that a set cannot refer to itself ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there'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, John Clark wrote: 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 true? 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a computer' The following statement is without question true: "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" A computer would have no difficulty in asserting this true statement, in fact every one of you is looking at a computer now doing that simple task right now, and yet there is no logical paradox that threatens to tear the universe apart; and yet a human being, Benjamin Jakubik, is unable to perform this task, a task that even the smallest computer can do with ease. John K Clark How would this work when it is the computer itself that is named and not some third party such as Ben? -- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.