Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 10:41:43 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 11:41:06, Matthew Hull wrote: >On August 06, 2002 at 10:41:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 05, 2002 at 16:28:39, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On August 05, 2002 at 11:45:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 05, 2002 at 11:10:55, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>Do computers make decisions? >>>>>If so, what is your definition of a "computer decision" and how it relates and >>>>>differs from human decisions? >>>>> >>>>>Please cite examples. This can be from chess to any area of so-called "machine >>>>>intelligence", please give _your_ answers, as well as information that can be >>>>>obtained on the net. >>>>> >>>>>Your help with these answers will be greatly appreciated! >>>>> >>>>>Thanks in Advance. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>> Terry McCracken >>>> >>>> >>>>A couple of points. >>>> >>>>First, _yes_ a computer makes decisions. For example, you can use an >>>>external A/D converter to measure two temperatures in a steam plant and make >>>>a decision as to which burner should be turned up or down based on those >>>>measurements. >>>> >>>>Second, does a computer make decisions like _we_ do? Impossible to say. IE >>>>can you _prove_ that the human mind doesn't rely on anything other than pure >>>>binary values? Nobody has to date, so that is an open question. Wouldn't it >>>>be funny if we one day find out that at the elementary level, everything we do >>>>is on/off? :) >>>> >>>>Perhaps one of the best examples of "making a decision" is in computer chess, >>>>where the computer has to choose between N moves and pick just one. That is >>>>_clearly_ a decision... >>> >>> >>>We say that computers make decisions but that is really just for the sake of >>>convenience when talking about processes. That computers decide anything is >>>purely notional. >>> >>>We wouldn't say that a colander is deciding to let the water drain out of it >>>while not permitting the pasta to pass through the holes. Neither would we say >>>that bean sorters, gravel sorters, or hollerith card sorters are making >>>decisions. Their functions are completely and totally deterministic. >> >>OK... but at least for parallel search, even that is not true. IE my program >>is not "deterministic" in any way when using multiple cpus. .. although I >>don't see what that has to do with whether or not it is "making a decision." >> >>I'm afraid that one day we are going to discover that the human mind is not >>nearly as remarkable as we give it credit for being. >> >> >>> >>>We would say that the _designers_ are really making all the decisions here! >> >>Then your parents/teachers are making all _your_ decisions? After all, they >>teach you good vs bad, etc... >> >> >> >>> >>>Some will say that we don't know that that's not all there is to the "mind" >>>ultimately. I would say that Penrose has shown that definitely, Turing machines >>>_dont_ work like our minds! Those proofs falsify the hypothesis. >> >>How can you prove computers don't work like our minds when you can't even >>state precisely how our minds work? That seems like an impossibility... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>I've read many critics of Penrose on this issue, but they NEVER provide any math >>>for their arguments. The math is the whole game. >> >> >>Neither does _he_ provide any math relating exactly to how the human brain >>functions... so proving something is different becomes just an opinion, not >>a "fact"... > >But he did provide proofs that certain problems cannot be traversed >algorithmically? Is this not the point? > >If it is proven that there are not algorithmic solutions to important types of >problems, then Turing machines can't solve them, ever, period. Yet "minds" _do_ >solve them with ease. Sorry, I have to disagree strongly. Please, name a problem (like the TM halting problem) and point to some human brain that can solve it. Then I will pose a single problem instance of the named problem, and we will ask that named human brain to solve it, with just the brain, and without any computer or other computational device. And we will find... the brain can't do it. Note, that "solving a problem" means to solve a complete class of problem instances. "Solving" just a single instance is not very interesting. Cheers, Heiner > Therefore, "minds" are not Turing machines. You don't >have to have the "math" of the human brain to reach that conclusion. > >The Turing machine is trapped in an algorithmic universe from which there is no >escape. If the proofs that he provided stand, then his point is made. It seems >to me that to dispute his point and still be credible, you MUST dispute the >proofs. > >Anyway, that was my understanding of his argument. I've yet to see anybody >challenge his central thesis in any serious manner. One suspects there's alot >of intellectual capital invested in Strong AI for which this kind of news is not >welcome. > >BTW, chess, as we all know, _is_ a class of problem that _can_ be solved >algorithmically. A fact for which I'm sure we can all agree is quite >delightful.:-) > >Best regards, >Matt > >> >> >> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.