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 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
program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
relatively slow and
error prone.
regards, The Computer
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.
There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is
true or
false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.
In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-
value of
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can
reach
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is
something
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.
Not really. You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be
computed"
and "what a
computer does". You're supposing that a computer cannot have the
reflexive inference
capability to "see" that the statement is true.
No, I don't supppose that it does. It results from the fact that we
get a
contradiction if the computer could see that the statement is true
(since it
had to compute it, which is all it can do).
A computer can do much more than computing. It can do proving,
defining, inductive inference (guessing), and many other things. You
might say that all this is, at some lower level, still computation,
but then this can be said for us too, and that would be a confusion of
level. The fact that a computer is universal for computation does not
imply logically that a computer can do only computations. You could
say that a brain can only do electrical spiking, or that molecules can
only do electron sharing.
meekerdb wrote:
Yet you're also supposing that when we
"see" it is true that that is not a computation.
No. It can't be a computation, since if it were a computation we
couldn't
conclude it is true (as this would be a contradiction, as I showed
above).
Unless you reject binary logic, but I am sure the problem also
arises in
other logics. I might try this later.
meekerdb wrote:
As Bruno would say, you are just
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do
hypercomputation.
I didn't say hypercomputation. Just something beyond computation.
Comp makes consciousness and universes beyond computations.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
