On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > It one thing to say human (symbolic) abilities (and foibles) have not been replicated, and another to say humans do things clearly and fundamentally "non-computable". The latter would be earth shaking. > > Chess examples? Any chess problem is computable - but also the days of claiming any sort of superiority for man are drastically numbered. >
I don't think it would be (earth shaking). It's what a lot of people take for granted, and so far they have no reason to question in that regard. Down the road maybe.
Yes, and he's been through Portland a number of times, c/o ISEPP.org (I've been on the board). I've caught him live. Good presenter, quite smart with his audience. Glad I had the privilege. Haven't met any computers that were nearly as engaging.
>>It's really quite easy to find results humans >>have arrived at that no automaton has been >>able to touch. > > So, what follows? There are no known counterexamples to Goldbach's conjecture - does that make it true? > > Joe N >
Lets just say one may have a healthy respect for the quality of intelligence humans bring to the equations, without being a computer phobe or hating automation. Hugh Kenner is a hero of mine, in being a truly gifted humanities / liberal arts professor ('The Pound Era' is great writing), and author of a regular column for BYTE / McGraw-Hill (a company I've worked with).
My elder daughter did a double major in computer science and theater and I'm seeing more and more how that could be a good combo. Puppet theater & OOP: a subject for Python.TV cartoons. "Math objects..."