> 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'
----- Receiving the following content -----From: John ClarkReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 13:35:48Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
� John K Clark �
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 15:38:13Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: benjaykReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: benjaykReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-21, 18:26:33Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 18:08:08Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal�" does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard�
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjayk�In monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).�The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
Hi Richard RuquistYou need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisnameexperiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal�" does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard�
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjayk�In monadic theory,爏ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).�The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors爏uch as whether or not itsa clear爉onadic weather day.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-22, 09:09:31Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist锟斤拷
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
锟斤拷Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty,锟斤拷as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
锟斤拷锟斤拷
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
Hi Richard RuquistI'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking.Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merelytheoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension tophysically exist.Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
Time: 2012-08-22, 09:09:31Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,爏ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors爏uch as whether or not itsa clear爉onadic weather day.
> I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:
"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.
"The point is that there is no way for the computer to determine either question (mine or yours), without relying on us."
> The universe is fine, it just cannot be caputured computationally.
--
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).
No, certainly not, it is anything but symmetrical. My computer doesn't
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.
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.
I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can be
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.
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.
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.
Hi Richard RuquistI'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking.Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merelytheoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension tophysically exist.
Hi John ClarkDo computers have intuition ?I believe that intuition is necessary to solve a puzzle orprove a mathematical or logical stratement. To producesomething new or previously unknown.Intuiition may be like inference, a form of synthetic thinking,versus analytic thinking. Only synthesis can produce something new.Personally, I wonder if it wasn't intuition that Penrosehad in mind when he suggested that in solving problems wesometimes pop pour heads into the platonic realm (my words).
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.
Not really. Rather what happens places bounds on the laws.
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.
>
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).
I agree. But I have never said that I support CI. In my opinion universes
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
>
are abstractions that don't actually exist, ultimately. Neither one, nor
infinitely many (though the latter seems far more accurate to me).
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Dear Roger,
锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist锟斤拷
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
锟斤拷Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty,锟斤拷as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
锟斤拷锟斤拷
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."----- Receiving the following content -----From: benjaykReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computersmeekerdb 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.
--
Hi Stephen P. KingMonads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence.Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/23/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Dear Roger,
You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,爏ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors爏uch as whether or not itsa clear爉onadic weather day.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."----- Receiving the following content -----From: benjaykReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computersmeekerdb 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.
--
-- 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Jason ReschReceiver: everyth...@googlegroups.comTime: 2012-08-22, 15:32:00
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-22, 11:23:08Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: benjaykReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 11:48:24
Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 14:53:53Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywith a chanceofthunderstorms
it is known, however, that monads however are capable of subconscious
or unconscious activity, since they are wholistically mind + feelings + body.
So in some way monads may have intuition .
----- Receiving the following content -----From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-22, 15:01:34Subject: Re: On (platonic) intuition
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 07:05:17Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
Roger,Please tell us how you know that.If you refer back to Leibniz,then you are treatingscience like a religion,making Liebniz into a prophetthat must be believed.
Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Stephen P. KingMonads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence.Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/23/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Dear Roger,
锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist锟斤拷
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
锟斤拷Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty,锟斤拷as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
锟斤拷锟斤拷
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 07:17:57
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 08:26:50
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.
That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all.
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.
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.
Really? How come that we never ever emulated anything which isn't already
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.
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.
Nope. We are not computers and also not hyper-computers.
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.
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.
Hi Richard Ruquist
Richard
Dear Roger,
You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,爏ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors爏uch as whether or not itsa clear爉onadic weather day.
Only because there is no absolute seperation between levels in actual
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> 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.
physical reality.
That is, you can't find atoms without a context of things and you can't find
things that don't contain atoms.
First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation.
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.
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.
It is like there are no specific numbers in the number 123456789. it is one
number; it doesn't contain numbers. We only interpret that into it (using
some algorithm), but then using the right algorithm, we can construct all
numbers out of it. Still no one would say that 123456789 exhaust all
numbers.
No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation. You
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.
can only interpret entities into it.
No. It can't select a computation because it includes all computations. To
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.
select a computation you must exclude some compuations, and the UD can't do
that (since it is precisely going through all computations)
I don't dispute that at all. I very much agree that computer rise beyond the
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> The UD is an example
> that programs can grow beyond the intentions of the creator.
intention of their users (because we don't actually know what the program
will actually do).
I am not even saying that the UD isn't intelligent. I am just saying that
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> The UD itself
> isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences.
humans are intelligent in a way that the UD is not (and actually the
opposite is true as well).
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 11:10:48Subject: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
Richard
Dear Roger,
锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist锟斤拷
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
锟斤拷Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty,锟斤拷as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
锟斤拷锟斤拷
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
Hi Stephen P. King
" Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe tocentres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance,an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads.These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, candestroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.."Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/23/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
> 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer'
> 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)
> 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).
> 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
> Maybe that is what dinstinguishes human intelligence from computers. Computers can't recognize meaninglessness or meaning.
> My computer doesn't generate such questions
> and I won't program it to.
Richard
Dear Roger,
You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,爏ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors爏uch as whether or not itsa clear爉onadic weather day.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 12:59:19
Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-23, 13:17:58Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywithachanceofthunderstorms
Richard
Dear Roger,
锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside.
On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc.These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist锟斤拷
You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics.
锟斤拷Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty,锟斤拷as the Milligan-whatshisname
experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one.
锟斤拷锟斤拷
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net8/22/2012Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms
Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi benjaykIn monadic theory,锟絪ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one
and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad).The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence,
and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors锟絪uch as whether or not itsa clear锟絤onadic weather day.
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.
> Do computers have intuition ?
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 '
> So transistor count and smartness are the same?
> So if I have 10^^^^100 transistors that compute while(true) then you have something that is
unimaginable much smarter than a human?
>> 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
> The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined externally.
> Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them
OK, then no computers exists because no computer can actually emulate all
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.
>
programs that run on an universal turing machine due to lack of 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.
Yes, I studied computer science for one semester, so I have programmed a
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.
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.
For example how can you computationally determine whether to use the axiom
true=not(false) or use the axiom true=not(true)?
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?
That's very simple. Computer science has only something to say about
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?
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.
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.
???
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>> What is the evidence for your statement (or alternatively, why would it
>> think it is true for other reasons)?
>>
>
> Sit for a few minutes and try to come up with a process that cannot be
> replicated by a computer program, which does not involve one 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.
Well, actually I can't find any actual process that can be replicated by a
computer program.
If it could be, then I could use virtual things and processes like I use
actual things and processes. But this is empirically obviously not true.
If you want an example, take my heart beating. I can't substitute my heart
even with the best simulation of a heart beating, because the simulation
doesn't ACTUALLY pumps my blood. Even if it is completely accurate, this
doesn't help at all with the problem of pumping my blood because all it does
is generate information as output. We would still have the problem of using
that information to actually pump the blood, and this would pretty much
still require a real heart (or an other pump).
Note the word "described". Everything can be described using language as
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> 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
>
well (just invent an abitrary word for any thing you want to describe).
That is precisely the error. Description does NOT equal reality.
Yes, everything can be described using computers, and all descriptions can
be manipulated in abitrary way using computers.
But this is were it stops.
Computers can't go beyond symbol manipulation,
simply because that is exactly how we built them. That is the very
definition of a computer. Receive symbols, transform them in the stated way,
output symbols.
If you say that only computers exists, you say that only symbol manipulation
exists. The problem with that is that symbols don't make sense on their own,
as the very definition of a symbol is that it represents something other
than itself. So you CAN'T have only symbols and symbols manipulation because
the symbols are meaningless without something outiside of them and symbol
manipulation is meaningless if symbols are meaningless.
And this seems to be empirically true because there is pretty much no other
way to explain psi.
No, it doesn't even contain a subject.
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.
Bruno assumes COMP, which I don't buy at all.
Right, reality is not based on binary logic (even though it seems to play an
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).
important role).
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.
Nope. I think we will soon realize this as we undoubtably see that the brain
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?
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.
To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurementssplit local systems (including observers) in a subjectively randomfashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmittedeffects of the local interactions reach them. We have not assumed anynon-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictionsof QM.
A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates
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.
symbols (that is the definition of a computer),
and symbols need a meaning
outside of them to make sense.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if IThis may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it
>> 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.
just uses its own memory space.
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program.Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only contains
>> 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?
symbols that are manipulated in a particular way.
The definitions of the UD
or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a
reference to entities.
So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination.
Really it is not at all about intelligence in this sense. It is more about
awareness or universal intelligence.
Say you have a universal turing machine with the alphabet {0, 1}
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?
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).
--
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: John ClarkReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-08-23, 15:33:15Subject: Re: On (platonic) intuition
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Do computers have intuition ?
Certainly. The self driving cars that the people at Google and others have had so much success with lately wouldn't work without intuition; the car's memory banks are filled with statistical laws and rules of thumb to figure out the best path to get from point X to point Y.� We know it's intuition and not rigid logic because sometimes, just like with humans, the computer's intuition is wrong, and sometimes, just like with humans, they end up in a ditch.
� John K Clark ��
----- Receiving the following content -----From: John ClarkReceiver: 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 <whats...@gmail.com> 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;
锟斤拷� All mimsy were the borogoves,
锟斤拷锟斤拷� 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
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.
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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
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.