Author: José Carlos
Date: 15:59:59 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 15:09:56, Matthew Hull wrote: >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 If you're not capable to discuss the topic, and you just trust what Penrose says more than what experts here are saying, without providing any other argument than a reference to a book, you can't expect anyone to just trust you. I don't have that book myself and I find the topic pretty interesting. I'll try to get the book but anyway it would be extremely interesting if you could post one of those examples of what a human brain can do and a Turing machine can't, for we could discuss it. José C.
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.