subject:"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), Chairperson of the Kronstadt Vengeance Committee, Poet  
Laureate of the Randolph Bourne Association for Revolutionary  
Violets, Minister in the Church of Universal Life, Trustee for the  
Center for Mythographic Arts, Correspondent for the Desperate  
Imperialist News Service (DIN), Vice President of the Generic  
Graffiti Council of the Americas, CEO of the Umbrella Corporation  
and of the Spare Change Investment Corporation, Treasurer of the  
Commercial Erisian Orthodox Tabernacle, Assistant Treasurer of the  
John-Dillinger-Died-For-You Society, Public Relations Director of  
Precision Psychedelics, Managing Editor of The Decadent Worker,  
Public Security Committee Chief of the Revolutionary Surrealist  
Vandal Party (RSVP), Advisor to the Niccolo Machiavelli University  
of Jesuit Ethics, Instructor of the Mullah Nasrudin Sufi Mime  
Troupe, Dean of Bodhisattvas of the 12 Famous Buddha Mind School,  
Mail Clerk of Junk Mail Associates, Chaplaim ofthe Erotic Terrorism  
Committee of the Fucking Communist Conspiracy (FCC, etc.), Deputy  
Counsel of the International Brotherhood of Doom Prophets, Local  
666, Alleged Founder of the Zenarchist Affinity Group (ZAG) and the  
Zenarchist Insurgency Group (ZIG), Co-Founder of the Discordian  
Society, Grand Master ofthe Legion of Dynamic Discord, Saint 2nd  
Class in the Industrial Church of the SubGenius, CEO of the Brooklyn  
Bridge Holding Company, Executive Vice President of the Bank of  
Hell, Chief Engineer of the Southern Fascist Railway (``Our Trains  
Run On Time!''), Inspector for the Political Correctness Division of  
the Marta Batista Cola Company, and Satanist Quaker of 3388 Homera  
Place, Decatur, Georgia do hereby swear (or affirm) on this day of  
13 October 1993 under penalty of perjury that to the best of my  
knowledge, all of the above and much of the below is true in some  
sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and  
false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and  
meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in  
some sense, as the Discordian Church (or Synagogue) holds as a  
central tradition (borrowed from Buddhism and, thus, older than  
Christianity) tenet of its faith is true of all affirmations.





LOL

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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread meekerdb


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 "should be extracted" from something 
else, but if you can do so, please do.  It would certainly impress me.


Brent

--
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.

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 overcome it.

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.

Penrose was wrong, but eventually got the main point: Gödel's  
incompleteness does not show that we are not machine, but does show  
that we cannot consistently kno which machine we are, as the  
duplication thought experience can also explain more easily. This is  
exploited in AUDA, as it leads to the arithmetical form of the  
indeterminacy.

Gödel already knew in 1931 that theories like his Principia  
Mathematica, or ZF, PA, etc. can prove their own incompleteness  
theorem. PA proves consistent(PA) -> non-provable-by-PA(consistent(PA)).

Consistent(PA) is non-provable-by-PA('0 = 1').

The diagonalization is a useful tool to show that non computable  
things exists, and non-provable-by-X or Y, but those diagonalization  
are mostly constructive and computable.

It is possible to design a program that modify itself by adding new  
axioms, included the diagonalizations, so that the number of axioms  
can grow for any need.

Indeed.

This is rutinely done for equivalent problems in rule-based expert  
systems or in ordinary interpreters (aided by humans) in complex  
domains. But reduced to integer aritmetics, A turing machine that  
implements a math proof system at the deep level, that is, in an  
interpreter where new axioms can be automatically added trough  
diagonalizations, may expand the set of know deductions by  
incorporating new axioms trough diagonalization. This is not  
prohibited by the Gódel theorem. What is prohibited is to know all  
true statements on this domain. But this also apply to humans. So a  
computer can realize that a new axiom is absent in his initial set  
and to add it, Just like humans.

Right. G* can be emulated by G. At the propositional modal level, this  
makes a machine able to find all its true but non provable sentences.  
That makes the machine an excellent mystic subject.

I do not see in this a limitation for human free will. I wrote about  
this before.

It helps it. And it gives a role to consciousness as a sort of  
universal accelerator of computations. This relies more on the length  
of proof theorem than incompleteness, but all those things can be  
related precisely.

Bruno

The notion of free will based on the deterministc nature of the  
phisics or computation is a degenerated, false problem which is an  
obsession of the Positivists. Look form "degenerated" and  
"Positivism" to find mi opinion about that in this list if you are  
interested.

2012/8/24 Jason Resch 

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 on  
typewriters.

>>
>>
> A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any  
possible
> way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning.  If you  
see a
> particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty  
clearly be

> interpreted as addition, for example.
A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
symbols (that is the definition of a computer),

I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer.  Some have  
tried to define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than  
a game of symbol manipulation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) 
 ).  But if mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol  
manipulation, and everything can be described in terms of  
mathematics, then what is not symbol manipulation?

and symbols need a meaning
outside of them to make sense.

The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine  
which processes it.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So  
if I

>> write
>> >> a
>> >> program that computes something specific, I do something that  
the UD

>> >> doesn't
>> >> do.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element  
of the

>> UD.
>> First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation.
>>
>> Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the  
UD. The

>> UD
>> itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that
>> dilineates
>> on program from the others.
>>
>
> Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous  
memory

> space.
This may be true from your perspective, but if you actual

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, Gold, Blum, Case  
and Smith, Oherson, Stob, ...), you can show this:
The more machines can be wrong, and relies on other machines, and  
change their minds, and (amazingly enough) change their mind wrongly  
(changing a correct theory for the know facts by an incorrect one),  
from times to times, the more larger are the classes of phenomena that  
they are able to recognize (build correct theories fro them).


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.


if like some people, you define intelligence by an ability to  
extrapolate series, there is something transcendentally (non- 
computably, even with strong oracles) more powerful than any inference  
inductive machine, it is a couple of inference inductive machines.


All machines evolves, in a non predictable way, through errors, notably.

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.

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 operation of the  
brain.


But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp  
before this can be used as an argument here.


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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread Craig Weinberg

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 but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it 
> for no reason. 
>

I did it for many reasons, some of them my own. Your argument is that grey 
must be either black or white. It's not true. Grey is neither black, white, 
nor is it nor black nor white. Why is this so difficult?

> I think  Lewis Carroll best summed up your ideas on this subject: 
>
> T was brillig, and the slithy toves
>   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
> All mimsy were the borogoves,
>   And the mome raths outgrabe.
>

It's interesting that you bring up Lewis Carroll (as you have before) as an 
insult, when actually the Alice books are brilliant explorations on 
consciousness and sense-making. Carroll was a mathematician and logician 
(see Dodgson), who published academic works under that name. I have been 
reading Deleuze's *The Logic of Sense* (pdf download: 
http://en.bookfi.org/book/1172079?_ir=1) in which he writes about Carroll's 
use of paradox and esoteric words to point out the multiple layers of sense 
inherent in language. You are reading Carroll on the most simplistic level, 
a childlike level where anything unfamiliar can only be giggled at.

It turns out that Deleuze's understanding of sense using Carroll's examples 
are identical to my own in many ways, especially the big picture 
dialectics. Many philosophical concepts, from mysticism to semiotics have 
repeatedly revealed the same kinds of primordial trichotomies. My ideas 
take a step further in that they anchor direct awareness as a temporal 
algebra in contradistinction to the spatial geometries of indirect 
perception.

> > Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would 
>> there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them 
>
>
> Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason 
> either exists or it does not.
>

What do your assumptions about my motives have to do with anything? What is 
useful about saying that something 'either exists or it does not'? 
Everything exists in some sense. Nothing exists in every sense.

> If other people pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they 
> do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay attention to my views 
> they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason.
>

According to your views, you don't have any views, and neither do any 
possible readers of your views. All of it is either robotic or random. I am 
saying that if you are right, then there is no point whatsoever for you to 
ever speak again. You are trying to wriggle out of it by subjecting 
anything I say to the same black and white reductionism that you have used 
to invalidate your own ability to participate in your own thought.

Craig

>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/540424X8rKoJ.
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.

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, and Everett showed we don't  
need it, if we assume comp or weaker.
Feynman called the collapse, a collective hallucination, but then with  
comp so is the wave.


It is misleading to use a non understood controversal idea in a domain  
(the wave collapse in physics) to apply it on complex non solved  
problem in another domain (the mind body problem).


There are no known phenomena capable of collapsing the wave, nor any  
known evidences that the wave does collapse.


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.

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 tries pointing on.
A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room.

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 from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove  
its own consistency. That would contradict Gödel II. When PA uses the  
induction axiom, RA might just say "huh", and apply it for the sake of  
the emulation without any inner conviction.


With Church thesis computing is an absolute notion, and all universal  
machine computes the same functions, and can compute them in the same  
manner as all other machines so that the notion of emulation (of  
processes) is also absolute.


But, proving, believing, knowing, defining, etc. Are not absolute, and  
are all relative to the system actually doing the proof, or the  
knowing. Once such notion are, even just approximated semi- 
axiomatically, they define complex lattices or partial orders of  
unequivalent classes of machines, having very often transfinite order  
type, like proving for example, for which there is a branch of  
mathematical logic, known as Ordinal Analysis, which measures the  
strength of theories by a constructive ordinal. PA's strength is well  
now as being the ordinal epsilon zero, that is omega [4] omega (=  
omega^omega^omega^...) as discovered by Gentzen).


It is not a big deal, it just mean that my ability to emulate einstein  
(cf Hofstadter) does not make me into Einstein. It only makes me able  
to converse with Einstein.


If you avoid gently the level confusion for the human person, there is  
no reason to avoid it for the machines.
It is not because universal machine can do all computations, that they  
can do all proofs, on the contrary, being universal and consistent  
will limit them locally, and motivate them to change themselves,  
relatively to their most probable universal histories.


Such infinite progression of self-changing machines have already been  
programmed, by Myhill, and myself, notably. In my more technical work,  
I use Becklemishev results which extends the soundness of G and G* on  
such machines, and prove a completeness theorem for the corresponding  
multimodal logic, with the provability parametrized on the ordinal (I  
say this for those interested and open to computer science as it is  
natural in the frame of the comp hypothesis).


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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk

re is no reason to apriori assume that there could not be
correlation between distant events (unless you have a dogmatically classical
worldview) - which would be inherently hard to measure.

Using two assumptions we can then show that there can be no one stastical
law for every universe that describes the events of multiverse (including
correlations).

One: There are infinititely many universes.
Two: The universes are correlated.

(since the information about correlation between universes is not contained
in the statistical law for every particular universe)

This even works if you substitute universe with multiverse and multiverse
with multi-multiverse (etc...). So if there is no level at which you can
"cap" reality, there can be no precise laws (if the events are correlated).

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34344219.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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 universe precisely follows
> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
> for it either.

The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science.
Evidence against it would be if magical things started happening.

> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms in
> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just give
> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will happen.
> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
> laws.
> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual precise,
> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we have
> no evidence for that.

Probabilities in quantum mechanics can be calculated with great
precision. For example, radioactive decay is a truly random process,
but we can calculate to an arbitrary level of certainty how much of an
isotope will decay. In fact, it is much easier to calculate this than
to make predictions about deterministic but chaotic phenomena such as
the weather.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk

ring machine, it is supposed to be able to
>> solve that problem. Yet because it doesn't have access to the right
>> level,
>> it cannot do it.
> 
> It is an example of direct self-manipulation, which turing machines are
> not
>> capable of (with regards to their alphabet in this case).
>>
> 
> Neither can humans change fundamental properties of our physical
> incarnation.  You can't decide to turn one of your neurons into a magnetic
> monopole, for instance, but this is not the kind of problem I was
> referring
> to.
I don't claim that humans are all powerful. I am just saying that they can
do things computer can't.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
> To avoid issues of level confusion, it is better to think of problems with
> informational solutions, since information can readily cross levels.  That
> is, some question is asked and some answer is provided.  Can you think of
> any question that is only solvable by human brains, but not solvable by
> computers?
OK, if you want to ignore levels, context and ambiguity then the answer is
clearly no!
Simply write a program that takes the question X and gives the appropiate
answer Y.
Since all combinations of strings exist the right solution exists for every
question.
Then you would still have to write the right program, though, and for that
you still need a human or a more powerful program.

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.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> You could of course create a model of that turing machine within that
>> turing
>> machine and change their alphabet in the model, but since this was not
>> the
>> problem in question this is not the right solution.
>>
>> Or the problem "manipulate the code of yourself if you are a program,
>> solve
>> 1+1 if you are human (computer and human meaning what the average humans
>> considers computer and human)" towards a program written in a turing
>> universal programming language without the ability of self-modification.
>> The
>> best it could do is manipulate a model of its own code (but this wasn't
>> the
>> problem).
>> Yet we can simply solve the problem by answering 1+1=2 (since we are
>> human
>> and not computers by the opinion of the majority).
>>
>>
> These are certainly creative examples, but they are games of language.  I
> haven't seen any fundamental limitation that can't be trivially reflected
> back and applied as an equivalent limitation of humans.
You didn't state in which way my problem is invalid. That you consider it
"just a game" doesn't change the objective conlusion at all.

I actually fully agree with you that the *most* fundamental limitation of
computers apply to humans as well (like for example being a particular thing
with a particular structure). I am not one of these people that project a
magical soul into human that makes them more special than everything else.
But that doesn't change the point that humans can do some things computers
can't, which is very important and relevant.

You might still believe that computers can do, for all intents and purposes,
what humans can do, but I fail to see how similiar examples of
self-reference, self-manipulation, self-relativity don't occur all the time
in high-level contexts.
And this is the reason that I fully expect computers to become much better
than humans in terms of *relatively* low-level tasks (even on the level of
reasoning about complex objectifiable topics), but not with regards to the
most high level subjects (like consciousness, emotion, ambiguity,
spirituality, axioms).
By the way, for a similar reason I believe that humans are in *some ways*
more limited than animals or plants, because they assume and know to much /
are too much concerned with relative notions (and thus can't go back to the
"ignorance" of animals which is intelligent in that it ignores relatively
superficial issues like descriptions).

So I am not saying humans>all, I am just saying that different kinds of
intelligence on different levels (like computer-, animal-, plant-, human-,
spirit-, environmental-, galaxy-, space-intelligence) can't be substituted,
but actually amplify and complement each other. They each have certain
limitations that others don't have.

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34343444.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk

g we can't directly observe like planets that are far away).
>> It
>> >> says "Make the least and the simplest assumptions".
>> >> We don't need to assume fundamental finiteness to explain anything, so
>> we
>> >> shouldn't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Nor should we assume infinities without reason.  There are some
>> physical
>> > reasons to assume there are no infinities involved in the brain,
>> however:
>> >
>> > 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 operation of the brain.
>> >
>> >
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Limit_on_information_density
>> >
>> That argument does not work if the human brain is entangled with the rest
>> of
>> the cosmos (because then you can't seperate it as a entity having a fixes
>> volume).
>>
> 
> Okay, let's say it is a bubble of 1000 light years surrounding you.  There
> is a finite quantity of information in this bubble, and only so much can
> reach its center (your brain) over the next 1,000 years.
I mean it is literally entangled with the rest of infinite existence, not
just our universe.
Really even according to the multiverse theory it is. There is no absolute
decoherence in it and there are infinititely many universes.



Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> And this seems to be empirically true because there is pretty much no
>> other
>> way to explain psi.
>>
> 
> What do you mean by psi?
Telepathy, for example.


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am not saying that nature is infinite in the way we picture it. It
>> may
>> >> not
>> >> fit into these categories at all.
>> >>
>> >> Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by
>> your
>> >> own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > The UD also contains subjective randomness, which is at the heart of
>> > Bruno's argument.
>> No, it doesn't even contain a subject.
>>
>> Bruno assumes COMP, which I don't buy at all.
>>
>>
> Okay.  What is your theory of mind?
I don't have any. Mind cannot be captured or even by described at the
fundamental level at all.


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> evidence for that.
>> The notion of entaglement doesn't make sense for machines, since they can
>> only process information/symbols, but entanglement is not informational.
>> Also, machines necessarily work in steps (that's how we built them), yet
>> entaglement is instantaneous. If you have to machines then they both have
>> to
>> do a step to know the state of the other one.
>>
>> And indeed entanglement is somewhat magical, but nevertheless we know it
>> exists.
>>
> 
> Effects from entanglement are not instantaneous under many worlds.
> 
> From: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html
> 
> To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements
> split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively random
> fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmitted
> effects of the local interactions reach them. We have not assumed any
> non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictions
> of QM.
Well, OK, it doesn't really matter (though I don't buy into many-worlds much
more than I buy into single world).
The thing is that a perfect simulation of entanglement still wouldn't be
actual entaglement (since it requires there to be no gap of level - a
classical computer simulating entaglement is not actually entangled with its
surroundings).

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34343299.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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

2012-08-24 Thread Roger Clough

Hi John Clark 

The laws of nature don't prevent me from unintentionally having a car accident.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following 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. 
> 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 Carroll best summed up your ideas on this subject: 

T was brillig, and the slithy toves
? Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
?? All mimsy were the borogoves,
??? And the mome raths outgrabe.

> Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would there 
> be any point in anyone else paying attention to them 

Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason either 
exists or it does not. If other people pay attention to my views they do so for 
a reason or they do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay 
attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason.

? 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread Alberto G. Corona

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
this was the end of the Hilbert idea.

What Penrose and others did is to find  a *particular** *(altroug qute
direct) translation of the Gódel theorem to an equivalent problem in terms
 of a Turing machine where the machine does not perform the diagonalization
and the set of axioms can not be extended..

2012/8/24 Alberto G. Corona 

> 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 adding new
> axioms, included the diagonalizations, so that the number of axioms can
> grow for any need. This is rutinely done for equivalent problems in
> rule-based expert systems or in ordinary interpreters (aided by humans) in
> complex domains. But reduced to integer aritmetics, A turing machine that
> implements a math proof system at the deep level, that is, in an
> interpreter where new axioms can be automatically added trough
> diagonalizations, may expand the set of know deductions by incorporating
> new axioms trough diagonalization. This is not prohibited by the Gódel
> theorem. What is prohibited is to know all true statements on this domain.
> But this also apply to humans. So a computer can realize that a new axiom
> is absent in his initial set and to add it, Just like humans.
>
> I do not see in this a limitation for human free will. I wrote about this
> before. The notion of free will based on the deterministc nature of the
> phisics or computation is a degenerated, false problem which is an
> obsession of the Positivists. Look form "degenerated" and "Positivism" to
> find mi opinion about that in this list if you are interested.
>
>
> 2012/8/24 Jason Resch 
>
>>
>>
>> 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 on typewriters.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any
>>> possible
>>> > way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning.  If you see a
>>> > particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty
>>> clearly be
>>> > interpreted as addition, for example.
>>> A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
>>> symbols (that is the definition of a computer),
>>
>>
>> I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer.  Some have tried to
>> define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than a game of
>> symbol manipulation (see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) ).  But if
>> mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol manipulation, and
>> everything can be described in terms of mathematics, then what is not
>> symbol manipulation?
>>
>>
>>> and symbols need a meaning
>>> outside of them to make sense.
>>>
>>
>> The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine which
>> processes it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I
>>> >> write
>>> >> >> a
>>> >> >> program that computes something specific, I do something that the
>>> UD
>>> >> >> doesn't
>>> >> >> do.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the
>>> >> UD.
>>> >> First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation.
>>> >>
>>> >> Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD.
>>> The
>>> >> UD
>>> >> itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that
>>> >> dilineates
>>> >> on program from the others.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Is your computer only running one program right now or many?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >  The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.
>>> >> No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation.
>>> You
>>> >> can only interpret entities into it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Why do I have to?  As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your
>>> > brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be
>>> > conscious?
>>> Because ther

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread Alberto G. Corona

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 adding new axioms,
included the diagonalizations, so that the number of axioms can grow for
any need. This is rutinely done for equivalent problems in rule-based
expert systems or in ordinary interpreters (aided by humans) in complex
domains. But reduced to integer aritmetics, A turing machine that
implements a math proof system at the deep level, that is, in an
interpreter where new axioms can be automatically added trough
diagonalizations, may expand the set of know deductions by incorporating
new axioms trough diagonalization. This is not prohibited by the Gódel
theorem. What is prohibited is to know all true statements on this domain.
But this also apply to humans. So a computer can realize that a new axiom
is absent in his initial set and to add it, Just like humans.

I do not see in this a limitation for human free will. I wrote about this
before. The notion of free will based on the deterministc nature of the
phisics or computation is a degenerated, false problem which is an
obsession of the Positivists. Look form "degenerated" and "Positivism" to
find mi opinion about that in this list if you are interested.

2012/8/24 Jason Resch 

>
>
> 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 on typewriters.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any
>> possible
>> > way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning.  If you see a
>> > particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly
>> be
>> > interpreted as addition, for example.
>> A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
>> symbols (that is the definition of a computer),
>
>
> I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer.  Some have tried to
> define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than a game of
> symbol manipulation (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) ).  But if
> mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol manipulation, and
> everything can be described in terms of mathematics, then what is not
> symbol manipulation?
>
>
>> and symbols need a meaning
>> outside of them to make sense.
>>
>
> The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine which
> processes it.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I
>> >> write
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD
>> >> >> doesn't
>> >> >> do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the
>> >> UD.
>> >> First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation.
>> >>
>> >> Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD.
>> The
>> >> UD
>> >> itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that
>> >> dilineates
>> >> on program from the others.
>> >>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> Is your computer only running one program right now or many?
>
>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >  The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.
>> >> No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation.
>> You
>> >> can only interpret entities into it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Why do I have to?  As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your
>> > brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be
>> > conscious?
>> Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only
>> contains
>> symbols that are manipulated in a particular way.
>
>
> You forgot the processes, which are interpreting those symbols.
>
> The spikes of neural activity in your optic nerve are just symbols, but
> given an interpreter (your visual cortex and brain) those symbols become
> quite meaningful.
>
>
>> The definitions of the UD
>> or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a
>> reference to entities.
>>
>>
> The definition of this universe doesn't contain a reference to human
> beings either.
>
>
>> So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination.
>>
>>
> I think I would still be able to experience meaning even if no one was
> looking at me.
>
>
>> It is like 1+1=2 d

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 on typewriters.
> >>
> >>
> > A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any possible
> > way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning.  If you see a
> > particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly
> be
> > interpreted as addition, for example.
> A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
> symbols (that is the definition of a computer),


I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer.  Some have tried to
define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than a game of
symbol manipulation (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) ).  But if mathematics
can be viewed as nothing but symbol manipulation, and everything can be
described in terms of mathematics, then what is not symbol manipulation?


> and symbols need a meaning
> outside of them to make sense.
>

The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine which
processes it.


>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I
> >> write
> >> >> a
> >> >> program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD
> >> >> doesn't
> >> >> do.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the
> >> UD.
> >> First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation.
> >>
> >> Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD. The
> >> UD
> >> itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that
> >> dilineates
> >> on program from the others.
> >>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
Is your computer only running one program right now or many?


>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.
> >> No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation.
> You
> >> can only interpret entities into it.
> >>
> >>
> > Why do I have to?  As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your
> > brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be
> > conscious?
> Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only
> contains
> symbols that are manipulated in a particular way.


You forgot the processes, which are interpreting those symbols.

The spikes of neural activity in your optic nerve are just symbols, but
given an interpreter (your visual cortex and brain) those symbols become
quite meaningful.


> The definitions of the UD
> or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a
> reference to entities.
>
>
The definition of this universe doesn't contain a reference to human beings
either.


> So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination.
>
>
I think I would still be able to experience meaning even if no one was
looking at me.


> It is like 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about putting an apple into a bowl
> with an apple already in it. You can interpret that into it, and its not
> necessarily wrong, but it is not part of the equation.
> Similarily you can interpret entities into the UD and that is also not
> necessarily wrong, put the entities then still are not part of the UD.
>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not
> >> >> derived
> >> >> from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce
> >> >> every
> >> >> possible output some day.
> >> >>
> >> >> Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility
> but
> >> >> also
> >> >> encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones
> >> and
> >> >> producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain
> >> >> time
> >> >> limit.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > And there are processes that do this, within the UD.
> >> No. It can't select a computation because it includes all computations.
> >> To
> >> select a computation you must exclude some compuations, and the UD can't
> >> do
> >> that (since it is precisely going through all computations)
> >>
> >>
> > So it selects them all, and excludes nothing.  How is this a meaningful
> > limitation?
> >
> > If you look at two entities, X, and Y.  X can do everything Y can do, and
> > more, but Y can only do a subset of what X does.  You say that X is more
> > limited than Y because it can't do only what Y does.
> That's absolutely correct. A human that (tries to) eat

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. I take computer to mean
> >> >> the
> >> >> usual physical computer,
> >> >
> >> > Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a
> >> > rather well defined and widely understood definition?
> >> Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't have to be abstract.  It could be any physical machine that
> has
> > the property of being Turing universal.  It could be your cell phone, for
> > example.
> >
> OK, then no computers exists because no computer can actually emulate all
> programs that run on an universal turing machine due to lack of memory.
>

If you believe the Mandlebrot set, or the infinite digits of Pi exist, then
so to do Turing machines with inexhaustible memory.


>
> But let's say we mean "except for memory and unlimited accuracy".
> This would mean that we are computers, but not that we are ONLY computers.
>
>
Is this like saying our brains are atoms, but we are more than atoms?  I
can agree with that, our minds transcend the simple description of
interacting particles.

But if atoms can serve as a platform for minds and consciousness, is there
a reason that computers cannot?

Short of adopting some kind of dualism (such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism , or the idea that God
has to put a soul into a computer to make it alive/conscious), I don't see
how atoms can serve as this platform but computers could not, since
computers seem capable of emulating everything atoms do.



>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> since this is all that is required for my argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that
> definition
> >> >> because a human is not a computer according to the everyday
> >> >> definition.
> >> >
> >> > A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a
> >> > human could exist with the definition of a computer.  Computers are
> >> > very powerful and flexible in what they can do.
> >> That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all.
> >>
> >>
> > Have you ever done any computer programming?  If you have, you might
> > realize that the possibilities for programs goes beyond your imagination.
> Yes, I studied computer science for one semester, so I have programmed a
> fair amount.
> Again, you are misinterpreting me. Of course programs go beyond our
> imagination. Can you imagine the mandel brot set without computing it on a
> computer? It is very hard.
> I never said that they can't.
>
> I just said that they lack some capability that we have. For example they
> can't fundamentally decide which programs to use and which not and which
> axioms to use (they can do this relatively, though). There is no
> computational way of determining that.
>

There are experimental ways, which is how we determined which axioms to use.

There is no reason a computer could not use these same approaches.


>
> For example how can you computationally determine whether to use the axiom
> true=not(false) or use the axiom true=not(true)?
>

Some of them are more useful, or lead to theories of a richer complexity.
 If the computer program had a concept for desiring novelty/surprises, it
would surely find some axiomatic systems more interesting than others.


> 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?
>

How do we?


>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > You may not buy into this, but the overwhelming majority of computer
> > scientists do.  If you have
> > no opinion one way or the other, and don't wish to investigate it
> > yourself,
> > for what reason do you reject the mainstream expert opinion?
> That's very simple. Computer science has only something to say about
> computers, so an expert on that can't be trusted on issues going beyond
> that
> (what is beyond computation).
> To the contrary they are very likely biased towards a computational
> approach
> by their profession.
>

There is probably some of that, yes.


> Or to put it more rudely: Many computer scientists are deluded by their own
> dogma of computation being all important (or even real beyond an idea),
> just
> like many priests are deluded about God being all important (or even real
> beyond an idea). Inside their respective system, there is nothing to
> suggest
> the contrary, and most are unwilling to step out of them system because
> they
> want to be comfortable and not be rejected by their peers.
>
>
Most consciousness researchers (who often are not computer scientists)
subscribe to the functionalist/computational theory of mind.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread Stephen P. King

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 you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do 
it for no reason. I think  Lewis Carroll best summed up your ideas on 
this subject:

T was brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

> Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either
case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to
them 

Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason 
either exists or it does not. If other people pay attention to my 
views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. If 
other people do NOT pay attention to my views they do so for a reason 
or they do not do so for a reason.

  John K Clark

Does the chain of reasons stop at some point or is it an infinite regress?

--
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread John Clark

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 Carroll best summed up your ideas on this
subject:

T was brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

> Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would
> there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them

Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason either
exists or it does not. If other people pay attention to my views they do so
for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay
attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a
reason.

  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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread Stephen P. King


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 UD?

--
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread John Clark

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 " by asking Benjamin Jakubik"
explain to me why at the fundamental logical level things would be
different.

> So transistor count and smartness are the same?

Not a bad first order approximation.  Software is improving too, maybe not
at the breakneck pace of hardware evolution but still much faster than
humans are improving their software.

> So if I have 10100 transistors that compute while(true) then you have
> something that is
> unimaginable much smarter than a human?
>

In a word yes. And I must say that 10100 is a pretty big number
considering that there are only 10^ 80 atoms in the observable universe.

 >>  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?
>
>

> I don't know.

I don't know either, nobody knows, even the computer doesn't know if it
will stop until it finds itself stopping; if you want to know what it's
going to do there is no shortcut, all you can do is watch it and see.

> > This doesn't relate to whether it carries out the instructions
>

The computer will either stop or it will not and the difference depends on
your instructions. You said "The definition of a computer is that it
precisely carries out the instructions it is given" so is the implicit
order to stop included in "find the first even integer greater than 4 that
is not the sum of two primes greater than 2 and then stop"?  Saying the
computer only does what we tell it to do doesn't mean much in a case like
this because it is far from clear what the implications of our orders will
be.

  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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread Craig Weinberg


>
>
>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 neither random nor completely determined 
externally.

We are not merely followers of the laws of nature, we also create them, 
modify them, revolutionize them. Our intentionality even varies, from 
non-existent reflex to near libertarian control over aspects of our bodies 
and mind.

Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would 
there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them, what with their 
own robotic or random 'opinions'?

We have gone around this enough times to know that you aren't going to 
change your view, I just find it striking that you don't see that the logic 
of this arbitrary assertion which you keep repeating is blind and circular.

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GKxMWSH5dYQJ.
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.

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'
>>
> 
> If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement
> PERIOD.
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 '

The same paradox applies but the statement is clearly practically true
because it has no unambigous answer.



John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>> 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.
So transistor count and smartness are the same? So if I have 10100
transistors that compute while(true) then you have something that is
unimaginable much smarter than a human?



John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>> 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.
The definition of a computer is that it precisely carries out the
instructions it is given.


John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>  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?
I don't know. This doesn't relate to whether it carries out the instructions
it is given at all.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34340705.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

>> intention of their users (because we don't actually know what the program
>> will actually do).
>>
>>
> Okay.
> 
> Do you believe a computer program could evolve to be more intelligent than
> its programmer?
No, not in every way. Yes, in many ways. Computer already have, to some
degree. If we take IQ as a measure of intelligence, there are already
computers that score better than the vast majority of humans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214100719.htm

Really it is not at all about intelligence in this sense. It is more about
awareness or universal intelligence.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >  The UD itself
>> > isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences.
>> I am not even saying that the UD isn't intelligent. I am just saying that
>> humans are intelligent in a way that the UD is not (and actually the
>> opposite is true as well).
>>
>>
> Okay, could you clarify in what ways we are more intelligent?
> 
> For example, could you show a problem that can a human solve that a
> computer with unlimited memory and time could not?
Say you have a universal turing machine with the alphabet {0, 1}
The problem is: Change one of the symbols of this turing machine to 2.

Given that it is a universal turing machine, it is supposed to be able to
solve that problem. Yet because it doesn't have access to the right level,
it cannot do it.
It is an example of direct self-manipulation, which turing machines are not
capable of (with regards to their alphabet in this case).
You could of course create a model of that turing machine within that turing
machine and change their alphabet in the model, but since this was not the
problem in question this is not the right solution.

Or the problem "manipulate the code of yourself if you are a program, solve
1+1 if you are human (computer and human meaning what the average humans
considers computer and human)" towards a program written in a turing
universal programming language without the ability of self-modification. The
best it could do is manipulate a model of its own code (but this wasn't the
problem).
Yet we can simply solve the problem by answering 1+1=2 (since we are human
and not computers by the opinion of the majority).

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34340683.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread John Clark

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 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.

> 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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

nvolved in the brain, however:
> 
> 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 operation of the brain.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Limit_on_information_density
> 
That argument does not work if the human brain is entangled with the rest of
the cosmos (because then you can't seperate it as a entity having a fixes
volume).
And this seems to be empirically true because there is pretty much no other
way to explain psi.


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> I am not saying that nature is infinite in the way we picture it. It may
>> not
>> fit into these categories at all.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
>> own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
>>
>>
> The UD also contains subjective randomness, which is at the heart of
> Bruno's argument.
No, it doesn't even contain a subject.

Bruno assumes COMP, which I don't buy at all.


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you believe humans are hyper computers?  If not, then we are just
>> > special cases of computers.  The particular case can defined by
>> > program, which may be executed on any Turing machine.
>> Nope. We are not computers and also not hyper-computers.
>>
>>
> That is a bit like saying we are not X, but we are also not (not X).
Right, reality is not based on binary logic (even though it seems to play an
important role).


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> Hyper computers are these imagined things that can do everything normal
> computers
> cannot.  So together, there is nothing the two could not be capable of.
>  What is this magic that makes a human brain more capable than any
> machine?
>  Do you not believe the human brain is fundamentally mechanical?
Nope. I think we will soon realize this as we undoubtably see that the brain
is entangled with the rest of the universe. The presence of psi is already
evidence for that.
The notion of entaglement doesn't make sense for machines, since they can
only process information/symbols, but entanglement is not informational.
Also, machines necessarily work in steps (that's how we built them), yet
entaglement is instantaneous. If you have to machines then they both have to
do a step to know the state of the other one.

And indeed entanglement is somewhat magical, but nevertheless we know it
exists.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34340179.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following
> >> sentence
> >> >> >> without
> >> >> >> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently
> >> assert
> >> >> but
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> > computer can:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is
> >> >> true."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot
> consistently
> >> >> >> assert
> >> >> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik
> is
> >> >> >> > asserting
> >> >> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot
> >> assert
> >> >> all
> >> >> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones.
> >> >> That
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> >> >> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right
> >> >> that
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> >> >> >> difference.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and
> more
> >> >> >> empirical:
> >> >> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> >> >> >> programming
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> computer'
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to
> >> my
> >> >> >> problem
> >> >> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible
> >> >> because
> >> >> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer
> >> >> doesn't
> >> >> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe
> >> that
> >> >> you
> >> >> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> >> >> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get
> >> out
> >> >> of
> >> >> >> programming the computer the right way. 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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we
> built
> >> >> >> them),
> >> >> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I once played with an artificial life program.  The program
> >> consisted
> >> >> of
> >> >> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired
> >> >> brains.
> >> >> >  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> >> >> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> >> >> > gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke
> >> to
> >> >> find
> >> >> > them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I,
> >> nor
> >> >> the
> >> >> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so,
> >> why
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
> >> >> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising
> >> because
> >> >> we
> >> >> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give
> >> it
> >> >> will
> >> >> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They
> just
> >> >> won't
> >> >> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give
> >> >> them.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the
> >> > universal dovetailer.
> >> The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense
> >> of
> >> universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned,
> that
> >> doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example,
> >> prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages
> >> don't).
> >>
> >
> > It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies
> > exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels.
> >
> 
>
> Sorry but that's nonsense. Look at the word: "break"
> At the lowest level it is just one word, yet at the higher level there are
> many possibilit

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

e of the three
things I mentioned.  You may soon become frustrated by the seeming
impossibility of the task, and develop an intuition for what is meant by
Turing universality.

The reasoning is, anything that can be described algorithmically, and does
not require an infinite number of steps to solve, can be solved by a
computer following that algorithm.  No one has found or constructed any
algorithm that cannot be followed a computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

>
> We have no reason to believe that nature is finite. It just seems to go on
> in every direction, we never found an edge. I am not saying it contains a
> completed infinity (in my opinion that's pretty much an oxymoron), but it
> appears to be inherently incomple.

I agree, our universe is probably infinite in size, and there are probably
infinitely many such structures that could be called universes.

But are humans infinite?  Do our brains or neurons need to process
continuous variables to infinite precision to function accurately?

There are many places where our equations
> *completely* break down, which implies that there might never be a accurate
> description there.
> Occams razor is not an argument against this. It doesn't say "Assume as
> little entities as possible" (otherwise we had to deny the existence of
> everything we can't directly observe like planets that are far away). It
> says "Make the least and the simplest assumptions".
> We don't need to assume fundamental finiteness to explain anything, so we
> shouldn't.
>

Nor should we assume infinities without reason.  There are some physical
reasons to assume there are no infinities involved in the brain, however:

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 operation of the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Limit_on_information_density

> I am not saying that nature is infinite in the way we picture it. It may
> not
> fit into these categories at all.
>
> Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
> own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
>
>
The UD also contains subjective randomness, which is at the heart of
Bruno's argument.

Subjective randomness occurs anytime a subject is duplicated into two
distinguishable locations.  To the subject, this duplication seems like a
teleportation with the probability of ending up in location A vs. location
B, being truly random.

In the third person view of the UD, or quantum mechanics, however, it is
entirely deterministic.

>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > Do you believe humans are hyper computers?  If not, then we are just
> > special cases of computers.  The particular case can defined by
> > program, which may be executed on any Turing machine.
> Nope. We are not computers and also not hyper-computers.
>
>
That is a bit like saying we are not X, but we are also not (not X).  Hyper
computers are these imagined things that can do everything normal computers
cannot.  So together, there is nothing the two could not be capable of.
 What is this magic that makes a human brain more capable than any machine?
 Do you not believe the human brain is fundamentally mechanical?

Jason

And please don't ask me to prove that. The burden of proof is on the one
> claiming that something exists in any particular way or is a particular
> thing (just like atheists rightfully say that the burden of proof is on the
> ones claiming that a christian God with very particular properties exists).

> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34339323.html
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

actually know what the program
will actually do).


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>  The UD itself
> isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences.
I am not even saying that the UD isn't intelligent. I am just saying that
humans are intelligent in a way that the UD is not (and actually the
opposite is true as well).


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true
>> laws,
>> >> not
>> >> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our
>> brain
>> >> are
>> >> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The
>> point
>> >> is
>> >> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive
>> of
>> >> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think
>> it
>> >> is
>> >> > an
>> >> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of
>> >> computation
>> >> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we
>> know,
>> >> we
>> >> > seem to be in the same boat.
>> >> 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 universe precisely
>> follows
>> >> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no
>> evidence
>> >> for it either.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for
>> > humans to be creative?
>> No. They don't exist in the first place, except in the mind of
>> physicists.
>> They are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the world. Just
>> like
>> "The sun rises in the morning" (except more accurate, of course).
>>
>>
> Do you think it is possible, in principal, for human beings to live in a
> realm that had fixed laws?
No, because such a realm is an impossibility. Fixed laws are only
abstraction (very useful and quite accurate ones, though).

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34339455.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

m our experience of objects).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 a Turing universal machine, which has a  
> rather well defined and widely understood definition?
Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer. Taking a computer
to be a turing machine would be like taking a human to be a picture or a
description of a human.
It is a major confusion of level, a confusion between description and
actuality.

Also, if we accept your definition, than a turing machine can't do anything.
It is a concept. It doesn't actually compute anything anymore more than a
plan how to build a car drives.
You can use the concept of a turing machine to do actual computations based
on the concept, though, just as you can use a plan of how to a build a car
to build a car and drive it.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> since this is all that is required for my argument.
>>
>> I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition
>> because a human is not a computer according to the everyday  
>> definition.
> 
> A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a  
> human could exist with the definition of a computer.  Computers are  
> very powerful and flexible in what they can do.
That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all.

Actually it can't be true due to self-observation.
A human that observes its own brain observes something entirely else than a
digital brain observing itself (the former will see flesh and blood while
the latter will see computer chips and wires), so they behaviour will
diverge if they look at their own brains - that is, the digital brain can't
an exact emulation, because emulation means behavioural equivalence.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
> Short of injecting infinities, true randomness, or halting-type  
> problems, you won't find a process that a computer cannot emulate.
Really? How come that we never ever emulated anything which isn't already
digital?
What is the evidence for your statement (or alternatively, why would it
think it is true for other reasons)?

We have no reason to believe that nature is finite. It just seems to go on
in every direction, we never found an edge. I am not saying it contains a
completed infinity (in my opinion that's pretty much an oxymoron), but it
appears to be inherently incomple. There are many places where our equations
*completely* break down, which implies that there might never be a accurate
description there. 
Occams razor is not an argument against this. It doesn't say "Assume as
little entities as possible" (otherwise we had to deny the existence of
everything we can't directly observe like planets that are far away). It
says "Make the least and the simplest assumptions".
We don't need to assume fundamental finiteness to explain anything, so we
shouldn't.
I am not saying that nature is infinite in the way we picture it. It may not
fit into these categories at all.

Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
> Do you believe humans are hyper computers?  If not, then we are just  
> special cases of computers.  The particular case can defined by  
> program, which may be executed on any Turing machine.
Nope. We are not computers and also not hyper-computers.

And please don't ask me to prove that. The burden of proof is on the one
claiming that something exists in any particular way or is a particular
thing (just like atheists rightfully say that the burden of proof is on the
ones claiming that a christian God with very particular properties exists).

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34339323.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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 something he can't consistently assert
> >> but
> >> >> a
> >> >> > computer can:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is
> >> true."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
> >> >> assert
> >> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> >> >> > asserting
> >> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert
> >> all
> >> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones.
> >> That
> >> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> >> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right
> >> that
> >> >> from
> >> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> >> >> difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
> >> >> empirical:
> >> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> >> >> programming
> >> >> a
> >> >> computer'
> >> >>
> >> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
> >> >> problem
> >> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible
> >> because
> >> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer
> >> doesn't
> >> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that
> >> you
> >> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> >> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out
> >> of
> >> >> programming the computer the right way. 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built
> >> >> them),
> >> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted
> >> of
> >> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired
> >> brains.
> >> >  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> >> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> >> > gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to
> >> find
> >> > them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor
> >> the
> >> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> >> >
> >> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> >> > would
> >> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
> >> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because
> >> we
> >> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it
> >> will
> >> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just
> >> won't
> >> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give
> >> them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the
> > universal dovetailer.
> The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense of
> universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned, that
> doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example,
> prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages
> don't).
>

It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies
exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels.

For example: if you exhausted every possible configuration of atoms, you
would also exhaust every possible chemical, every possible life form, and
every possible human.


>
> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a
> program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD
> doesn't
> do.
>

But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD.
 The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.

I am not sure what your point is though.  It is like saying, the universe
can only be everything, it can't be only me.  Therefore I can do something
the universe cannot.


> It is similar to claiming that it is hard to fi

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

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 - the data of the video could be
other

data as
well. We would indeed just find computation.
At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving,

inductive

interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing
thesis, they
can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a
computation of
a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they
would be

merely
labels that we use in our programming language.

All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This

does

not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of
provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA
machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines.
But
they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They
actually
give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can
play

chess.
Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not
provability, game, definability, etc.

OK, this makes sense.

In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be
enough to

say
that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original
form

still
holds (saying "solely using a computer").

For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the
elements in

the
sentence using a formal language like mathematics. English is too
ambiguous. If you try perfectly define what you mean by
computer, in a

formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a

definition

that includes computers, but does't also include human brains.

No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to
express

something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is
intuitively
true.

Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at
the

root,
since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise
definition. For
example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer,
but

this
begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0
first.

So
ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as
nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an
intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects).

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 a Turing universal machine, which has a
rather well defined and widely understood definition?

since this is all that is required for my argument.

I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition
because a human is not a computer according to the everyday
definition.

A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a
human could exist with the definition of a computer. Computers are
very powerful and flexible in what they can do.

Short of injecting infinities, true randomness, or halting-type
problems, you won't find a process that a computer cannot emulate.

Do you believe humans are hyper computers? If not, then we are just
special cases of computers. The particular case can defined by
program, which may be executed on any Turing machine.

--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34336029.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
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
.

--
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.

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 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 - the data of the video could be other
>> >> >> data as
>> >> >> well. We would indeed just find computation.
>> >> >> At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving,
>> inductive
>> >> >> interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing
>> >> >> thesis, they
>> >> >> can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a
>> >> >> computation of
>> >> >> a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be
>> >> >> merely
>> >> >> labels that we use in our programming language.
>> >> >
>> >> > All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This
>> does
>> >> > not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of
>> >> > provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA
>> >> > machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But
>> >> > they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually
>> >> > give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play
>> >> > chess.
>> >> > Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not
>> >> > provability, game, definability, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> OK, this makes sense.
>> >>
>> >> In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to
>> say
>> >> that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form
>> >> still
>> >> holds (saying "solely using a computer").
>> >>
>> >>
>> > For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in
>> > the
>> > sentence using a formal language like mathematics.  English is too
>> > ambiguous.  If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a
>> > formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a
>> definition
>> > that includes computers, but does't also include human brains.
>> >
>> >
>> No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express
>> something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is
>> intuitively
>> true.
>>
>> Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the
>> root,
>> since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For
>> example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but
>> this
>> begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first.
>> So
>> ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as
>> nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an
>> intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects).
>>
>>
> 
> 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, since this is all that is required for my argument.

I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition
because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34336029.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

hat computers can do, since they can, for example,
prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages
don't).

Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a
program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD doesn't
do.
It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not derived
from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce every
possible output some day.

Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility but also
encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones and
producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain time
limit.


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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).
>> >>
>> >
>> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws,
>> not
>> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
>> >
>> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain
>> are
>> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point
>> is
>> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
>> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it
>> is
>> > an
>> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of
>> computation
>> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know,
>> we
>> > seem to be in the same boat.
>> 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 universe precisely follows
>> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
>> for it either.
>>
> 
> So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for
> humans to be creative?
No. They don't exist in the first place, except in the mind of physicists.
They are approximate descriptions of the behaviour of the world. Just like
"The sun rises in the morning" (except more accurate, of course).


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms
>> in
>> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, quantum mechanical laws just
>> give
>> us a probability distribution, they don't tell us what actually will
>> happen.
>>
> 
> They place bounds on what can happen.
> 
Not really. Rather what happens places bounds on the laws.
Nature just tends to utilize regularities that can be described. That
doesn't mean it is constrained by it, just that it uses them (presumably
because they work).

Also, our laws don't really place bounds on what can happen because we know
they are not completely accurate (for example quantum mechanics and
relativity can't be united as of now).


Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>> In this sense current physics has already taken the step beyond precise
>> laws.
>> Some scientists say that the probability distribution is an actual
>> precise,
>> deterministic entity, but really this is just pure speculation and we
>> have
>> no evidence for that.
>>
> 
> We have better than evidence, there is actually a logical argument that
> demonstrates the CI idea (that there is a single universe with collapse)
> is
> not possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
> 
I agree. But I have never said that I support CI. In my opinion universes
are abstractions that don't actually exist, ultimately. Neither one, nor
infinitely many (though the latter seems far more accurate to me).

benjayk
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335995.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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, 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 - the data of the video could be other
> >> >> data as
> >> >> well. We would indeed just find computation.
> >> >> At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive
> >> >> interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing
> >> >> thesis, they
> >> >> can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a
> >> >> computation of
> >> >> a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be
> >> >> merely
> >> >> labels that we use in our programming language.
> >> >
> >> > All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does
> >> > not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of
> >> > provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA
> >> > machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But
> >> > they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually
> >> > give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play
> >> > chess.
> >> > Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not
> >> > provability, game, definability, etc.
> >> >
> >> OK, this makes sense.
> >>
> >> In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to
> say
> >> that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form
> >> still
> >> holds (saying "solely using a computer").
> >>
> >>
> > For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in
> > the
> > sentence using a formal language like mathematics.  English is too
> > ambiguous.  If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a
> > formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a
> definition
> > that includes computers, but does't also include human brains.
> >
> >
> No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express
> something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is intuitively
> true.
>
> Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the root,
> since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For
> example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but this
> begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first.
> So
> ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as
> nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an
> intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects).
>
>
So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning
that you yourself are not contained in that definition?

Jason

-- 
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.

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 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 something he can't consistently assert but
> >> a
> >> > computer can:
> >> >
> >> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
> >> >
> >> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
> >> assert
> >> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> >> > asserting
> >> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert
> all
> >> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That
> >> is
> >> a
> >> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> >> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that
> >> from
> >> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> >> difference.
> >>
> >> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
> >> empirical:
> >> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
> >> programming
> >> a
> >> computer'
> >>
> >> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
> >> problem
> >> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible
> because
> >> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer
> doesn't
> >> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that
> you
> >> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> >> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
> >> programming the computer the right way. 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.
> >>
> >> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built
> >> them),
> >> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
> >>
> >
> > I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted of
> > little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains.
> >  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> > artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> > gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to
> find
> > them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor the
> > original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> >
> > Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> > would
> > I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
> Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we
> don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it
> will
> be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just
> won't
> invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them.
>
>
>
It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the
universal dovetailer.


> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >
> > That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws,
> not
> > our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
> >
> > Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain
> are
> > as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point is
> > that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
> > building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it is
> > an
> > error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of computation
> > that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know, we
> > seem to be in the same boat.
> 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 universe precisely follows
> laws. I don't see why that would be the case at all and I see no evidence
> for it either.
>

So do you postulate that the laws of physics have to be malleable for
humans to be creative?


>
> Secondly, even the laws we have now don't really describe that the atoms in
> our brain are rigidly controlled. Rather, q

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
>> >> activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For
>> >> example, no
>> >> video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other
>> >> data as
>> >> well. We would indeed just find computation.
>> >> At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive
>> >> interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing
>> >> thesis, they
>> >> can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a
>> >> computation of
>> >> a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be
>> >> merely
>> >> labels that we use in our programming language.
>> >
>> > All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does
>> > not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of
>> > provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA
>> > machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But
>> > they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually
>> > give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play
>> > chess.
>> > Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not
>> > provability, game, definability, etc.
>> >
>> OK, this makes sense.
>>
>> In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say
>> that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form
>> still
>> holds (saying "solely using a computer").
>>
>>
> For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in
> the
> sentence using a formal language like mathematics.  English is too
> ambiguous.  If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a
> formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a definition
> that includes computers, but does't also include human brains.
> 
> 
No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express
something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is intuitively
true.

Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the root,
since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For
example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but this
begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first. So
ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as
nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an
intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335798.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 consistently assert this sentence" is true.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence
>> without
>> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but
>> a
>> > computer can:
>> >
>> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
>> >
>> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently
>> assert
>> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
>> > asserting
>> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all
>> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That
>> is
>> a
>> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
>> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that
>> from
>> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
>> difference.
>>
>> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
>> empirical:
>> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by
>> programming
>> a
>> computer'
>>
>> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
>> problem
>> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because
>> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't
>> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you
>> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
>> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
>> programming the computer the right way. 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.
>>
>> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built
>> them),
>> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
>>
> 
> I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted of
> little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains.
>  Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
> artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
> gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to find
> them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor the
> original programmer perhaps ever thought of.
> 
> Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why
> would
> I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?
Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we
don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it will
be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just won't
invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them.



Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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).
>>
> 
> That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws, not
> our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.
> 
> Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain are
> as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point is
> that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
> building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it is
> an
> error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of computation
> that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know, we
> seem to be in the same boat.
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 universe precisely follows
laws. I don't

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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence
> without
> > demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but a
> > computer can:
> >
> > "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
> >
> > If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert
> > this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> > asserting
> > something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all
> > true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is
> a
> > limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
> The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that
> from
> a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
> difference.
>
> Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
> empirical:
> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming
> a
> computer'
>
> Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my
> problem
> in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because
> the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't
> answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you
> can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
> It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
> programming the computer the right way. 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.
>
> Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them),
> if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them.
>

I once played with an artificial life program.  The program consisted of
little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains.
 Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's
artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at
gathering food.  But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to find
them doing something quite surprising.  Something that neither I, nor the
original programmer perhaps ever thought of.

Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do?  If so, why would
I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising?



>
> 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).
>

That we cannot use our brains to violate physical laws (the true laws, not
our models or approximations of them) is more than a metaphor.

Regardless of whether or not we are programmed, the atoms in our brain are
as rigididly controlled as the logic gates of any computer.  The point is
that physical laws, or logical laws serve only as the most primitive of
building blocks on which greater complexity may be built.  I think it is an
error to say that because inviolable laws sit at the base of computation
that we are inherently more capable, because given everything we know, we
seem to be in the same boat.



>
>
> John Clark-12 wrote:
> >
> >> The universe is fine, it just cannot be caputured computationally.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps the entire universe cannot be captured computationally but you
> can
> > be. You have not demonstrated that the computer has fundamental
> > limitations
> > that you do not. Whatever challenge you throw at the computer it can just
> > change the words "computer" to "Benjamin Jakubik" and throw a equally
> > challenging sentence right back at you. The situation is completely
> > symmetrical.
> No, certainly not, it is anything but symmetrical. My computer doesn't
> generate such questions and I won't program it to. It simply lacks the
> power
> to bother me with such questions. If it did, I would simply reprogram it,
> reinstall my software or buy a new computer.
>
>
You are a cruel master. :-)

Jason

-- 
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.

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 defined at the output/input. For
> >> example, no
> >> video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other
> >> data as
> >> well. We would indeed just find computation.
> >> At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive
> >> interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing
> >> thesis, they
> >> can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a
> >> computation of
> >> a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be
> >> merely
> >> labels that we use in our programming language.
> >
> > All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does
> > not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of
> > provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA
> > machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But
> > they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually
> > give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play
> > chess.
> > Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not
> > provability, game, definability, etc.
> >
> OK, this makes sense.
>
> In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say
> that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still
> holds (saying "solely using a computer").
>
>
For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in the
sentence using a formal language like mathematics.  English is too
ambiguous.  If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a
formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a definition
that includes computers, but does't also include human brains.

Jason

-- 
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.

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 without
> demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but a
> computer can:
> 
> "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."
> 
> If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert
> this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is
> asserting
> something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all
> true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is a
> limitation that both you and me and any computer have.
The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that from
a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any
difference.

Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more
empirical:
'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a
computer' 

Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my problem
in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because
the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't
answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you
can't succeed and thus that the statement is true.
It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of
programming the computer the right way. 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.

Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them),
if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them. 

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).

John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
> "The point is that there is no way for the computer to determine either
>> question (mine or yours), without relying on us."
> 
> 
> Please explain how replacing the words " Benjamin Jakubik" with "the
> computer" in the sentence in question or any other makes a fundamental
> difference.
Let's take your example "'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this
sentence' is true.".
I can just say your sentence is meaningless.
The computer can't do this, because he doesn't know what meaningless is,
either and using your computer you won't figure it out (just try to programm
meaninglessness into a computer :) ).

So if you try to solve my sentence using your computer, you might simply
conclude that it is meaningless. But in this case it is still practically
true that you couldn't confirm it using your computer, you could only see
its meaningless by yourself. So it doesn't change my conclusion.

Maybe that is what dinstinguishes human intelligence from computers.
Computers can't recognize meaninglessness or meaning. For them everything
could be true if you just programmed it into them.

John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>> The universe is fine, it just cannot be caputured computationally.
>>
> 
> Perhaps the entire universe cannot be captured computationally but you can
> be. You have not demonstrated that the computer has fundamental
> limitations
> that you do not. Whatever challenge you throw at the computer it can just
> change the words "computer" to "Benjamin Jakubik" and throw a equally
> challenging sentence right back at you. The situation is completely
> symmetrical.
No, certainly not, it is anything but symmetrical. My computer doesn't
generate such questions and I won't program it to. It simply lacks the power
to bother me with such questions. If it did, I would simply reprogram it,
reinstall my software or buy a new computer.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335440.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 the computer - the data of the video could be other  
>> data as
>> well. We would indeed just find computation.
>> At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive
>> interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing  
>> thesis, they
>> can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a  
>> computation of
>> a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be  
>> merely
>> labels that we use in our programming language.
> 
> All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does  
> not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of  
> provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA  
> machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But  
> they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually  
> give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play  
> chess.
> Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not  
> provability, game, definability, etc.
> 
OK, this makes sense.

In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say
that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still
holds (saying "solely using a computer").

Of course one can object to this, too, since it is not possible to solely
use a computer. We always use our brains to interpret the results the
computer gives us.

But its still practically true.
Just do the experiment and try to solve the question by programming a
computer. You will not be able to make sense of the question. As soon as you
cease to try to achieve a solution using the computer you will suddenly
realize the answer is YES since you didn't achieve a solution using the
computer (and this is what the sentence says).

The only way to avoid the problem is to hardcode the fact 'This statement
can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a computer'=true into the
computer and claim that this a confirmation. But it seems that this is not
what we really mean by confirming, since we could program 'This statement
can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a computer'=false into the
computer as well. It would just be a belief, not an actual confirmation.


Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> just because it can be
>> represented using computation. But ultimately a simple machine can't  
>> compute
>> the same as a complex one, because we need a next layer to interpret  
>> the
>> simple computations as complex ones (which is possible). That is,  
>> assembler
>> isn't as powerful as C++, because we need additional layers to  
>> retrieve the
>> same information from the output of the assembler.
> 
> That depends how you implement C++. It is not relevant. We might  
> directly translate C++ in the physical layer, and emulate some  
> assembler in the C++.
> But assembler and C++ are computationally equivalent because their  
> programs exhaust the computable function by a Turing universal machine.
I think this is just a matter of how we define computation. If computation
is defined as what an universal Turing machine does, of course nothing can
be more computationally powerful.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335113.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread John Clark

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 something he can't consistently assert but a
computer can:

"'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true."

If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert
this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is asserting
something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all
true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is a
limitation that both you and me and any computer have.

"The point is that there is no way for the computer to determine either
> question (mine or yours), without relying on us."

Please explain how replacing the words " Benjamin Jakubik" with "the
computer" in the sentence in question or any other makes a fundamental
difference.

> The universe is fine, it just cannot be caputured computationally.
>

Perhaps the entire universe cannot be captured computationally but you can
be. You have not demonstrated that the computer has fundamental limitations
that you do not. Whatever challenge you throw at the computer it can just
change the words "computer" to "Benjamin Jakubik" and throw a equally
challenging sentence right back at you. The situation is completely
symmetrical.

 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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

complex ones (which is possible). That is,
assembler
isn't as powerful as C++, because we need additional layers to
retrieve the

same information from the output of the assembler.

That depends how you implement C++. It is not relevant. We might
directly translate C++ in the physical layer, and emulate some
assembler in the C++.
But assembler and C++ are computationally equivalent because their
programs exhaust the computable function by a Turing universal machine.

You are right that we can confuse the levels in some way,

Better not to confuse the levels ever, except when using fixed point
theorem justifying precisely how to fuse levels.

basically because
there is no way to actually completely seperate them.

When we look at an unknown machine, yes.

But in this case we
can also confuse all symbols and definitions, in effect deconstructing
language. So as long as we rely on precise, non-poetic language it
is wise

to seperate levels.

OK. I agree with this.

Bruno

Bruno Marchal wrote:

but then this can be said for us too, and that would be a confusion
of

level.

Only if we assume we are computational. I don't.

Bruno Marchal wrote:

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.
You have a point here. Physical computers must do more then
computation,
because they must convert abstract information into physical signals
(which

don't exist at the level of computation).
But if we really are talking about the abstract aspect of computers,
I think
my point is still valid. It can only do computations, because all we
defined

it as is in terms of computationl.

benjayk

--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34333663.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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 is wrong.
> If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
> again leading to a contradiction.
> 
> But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
> statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
> the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
> sentence.
> 

There is even a much stronger variant of the sentence.
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a computer
and XYZ also can't be confirmed solely using a computer'

Again, the computer has the same problem.

We can't answer no (because this would mean that the computer can confirm
it, which we know to be wrong), but we can answer yes, so it appears that it
has to be true.

Which means that nothing can be ultimately confirmed by a computer. 

Actually the reason for this is simple: The computer can only confirm things
based on what we program into it, but it can't confirm whether what we
program into it is correct (since it needs to assume it, we force it to). So
ultimately it can't confirm anything. Not even that 1+1=2 (since it would
have to confirm the axioms first, which it can't) - yet we can confirm it
empiricially. The computer can only reflect what we confirmed first.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34333779.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>>
>>
>> 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).
> 
> You avoid the contradiction by saying, "What *I'm* doing is not
> computation." which you 
> can say because you don't know what you're doing - you're just "seeing"
> it's true.  If you 
> knew what you were doing you would know you were computing too and you'd
> be in the same 
> contradiction that you suppose the computer is in because computing "is
> all it can do."  
> You're implicitly *assuming* you can do something that is not computing to
> avoid the 
> contradiction and thereby prove you can do something beyond computing -
> see the circularity
> 
Not really. The fact that I can see its true proves that I can't be only
doing computation, because by only doing computation (and only allowing
binary logic as the answer) we could never arrive at the fact that the
sentence is true.

A computer would derive that it is false, and thus it is true and thus it is
false,... Or it would derive that it is true and thus that its answer must
be wrong (because its own way of arriving there contradicts the sentence),
so it must be false after all, etc... But it would never arrive at the fact
that the statement it is clearly true.
Yet I see that it is clearly true, since a computer could never unambigously
see its true (as the last paragraph shows).

We could only hardcode the statement into the computer, but then it just
states it and doesn't confirm it by itself.

You could say that I am beyond the level of the computer and thus can see
something about the computer that the computer can't.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34333746.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

ut in this case we
can also confuse all symbols and definitions, in effect deconstructing
language. So as long as we rely on precise, non-poetic language it is wise
to seperate levels.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> but then this can be said for us too, and that would be a confusion of  
> level.
Only if we assume we are computational. I don't.



Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>  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.
You have a point here. Physical computers must do more then computation,
because they must convert abstract information into physical signals (which
don't exist at the level of computation).
But if we really are talking about the abstract aspect of computers, I think
my point is still valid. It can only do computations, because all we defined
it as is in terms of computationl.

benjayk

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34333663.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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

2012-08-22 Thread Roger Clough

Hi meekerdb 

"I don't think you want to do that."

- HAL, the computer in 2001.

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: 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 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.  Yet you're 
also supposing that when we "see" it is true that that is not a computation.  
As Bruno would say, you are just rejecting COMP and supposing - not 
demonstrating - that humans can do hypercomputation.

Brent

-- 
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.

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

2012-08-22 Thread Roger Clough

Hi benjayk 

One cannot tell whether one is a monad dreaming he is a human,
or a human dreaming he is a monad.


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: 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 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).


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.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331938.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



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.

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

2012-08-22 Thread Roger Clough

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  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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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.

At the most basic level, programming a physical computer involves
arranging its matter in a particular configuration. The computer can
only arrive at subsequent configurations through the laws of physics
acting on the present configuration. And that is exactly the case with
humans as well: they can only arrive at subsequent configurations
through the laws of physics acting on the present configuration. So if
a computer can only do what it is programmed to do by its environment
a human also can only do what he is programmed to do by his
environment.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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 contradiction).
>
> So it seem to show we are beyond the brain as well.
>
> In fact, we can do this with any entity, and see that we are beyond any
> individual entity.

Think of like setting up a virtual machine which is separate from the
physical machine. It's not "really" separate in hardware, but it is
separate in software.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

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 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).

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).

You avoid the contradiction by saying, "What *I'm* doing is not computation." which you
can say because you don't know what you're doing - you're just "seeing" it's true. If you
knew what you were doing you would know you were computing too and you'd be in the same
contradiction that you suppose the computer is in because computing "is all it can do."
You're implicitly *assuming* you can do something that is not computing to avoid the
contradiction and thereby prove you can do something beyond computing - see the circularity?

Brent

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.

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 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).


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.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331938.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 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.  Yet you're also supposing that when we 
"see" it is true that that is not a computation.  As Bruno would say, you are just 
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do hypercomputation.


Brent

--
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.

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 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.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331797.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 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

--
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.

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, though.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331719.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 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,
> 

I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:

"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.

Yet the entity Benjamin Jakubik can't confirm this sentence by itself. It
can only express the truth that something beyond the person Benjamin is
seeing (which it is, since I - not solely being the person - can recognize
the truth of the statement and express it through Benjamin, who is merely
saying it, not recognizing its truth).

That is not the point. The point is that there is no way for the computer to
determine either question (mine or yours), without relying on us. The
computer could easily be programed to say that the statement is true or
false. Yet we can determine whether it is true, at least to some extent.

John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>  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;
I didn't say anything to that effect. The universe is fine, it just cannot
be caputured computationally. This just may tear the universe as the
materialists imagine it to be apart.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331714.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331679.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

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 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 contradiction).

So it seem to show we are beyond the brain as well.

In fact, we can do this with any entity, and see that we are beyond any
individual entity.

The sentence seemingly breaks down as we make it universal - 'This stament
can't be confirmed at all'.
This deconstructs the notion of confirmation. So we can see its true without
being able to confirm it.

Finally we could say 'This statement cannot be seen to be true'. At this
point, it seems there is nothing left to say about the statement in terms of
binary truth statements (like the liar paradox).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331651.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Bruno Marchal

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" before human being.

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 computer. It doesn't necessarily
show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human
may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am
quite

confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more
directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting
the

relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

trying to confirm it, so its answer is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a
computer,

again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer
the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the
solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of
the

sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following
statement is

true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well
program it to

say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely
transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even
superhuman AI

seems futile based on that.

will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already
happening

as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stephen P. King


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 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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stephen P. King


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 computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

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 is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").



--
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.

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 computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

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 is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").


--
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread smitra

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)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

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 is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34330236.html

Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
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.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread John Clark

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 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

-- 
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.

Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers