Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 12:09:56 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 13:41:43, Heiner Marxen wrote: >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 I will refer you to the book, The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose. Dispute it with him, if you can.;-) No one esle seems to be capable of it. Regards, Matt > > >> 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.