On 23 Aug 2012, at 19:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
> 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 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.
We might do things because the laws of arithmetic. With comp Nature is
not in the ontology. You are assuming physicalism here, which is
inconsistent with computationalism.
Bruno
> 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 category.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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.
