|
|
Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Posted:
Dec 15, 2011 11:00 PM
|
|
> Let me be clear - you said glibly humans can do "non-computable" things, while refering to Penrose.
> So, Penrose was talking about abilities in the symbolic realm that were beyond any formal system or turing type computation.
>
Let me be clear also.
It's not "guilty until proved innocent" i.e. it's not necessarily up
to Penrose to "prove" humans do non-computable things, so much as up
to those who hold the reverse, that what humans do is always
computable.
Sometimes, sure.
Other times, those holding this position are laughably unable to
muster any evidence for their case, so I'd say score for Penrose until
they have a leg to stand on.
Right now, they're just fringe.
> Penrose has made arguments, but hasn't proved anything.
> Many qualified people are completely unconvinced.
>
"Qualified people" means nothing here really.
Lots of debates go on, but any argument from authority is necessarily weak here.
> Lets just say that were he to actually prove his contentions, and convince the majority of people who
> can even follow the arguments, yes that would be earth shaking. Nobody has come close to doing anything like that.
>
No one has proved *only* computable processing goes on, either.
I'm not willing to concede that those without evidence (Penrose has
plenty -- lots that humans do, computers cannot and have not) somehow
have the benefit of the doubt whereas it's an uphill slog for Penrose,
and pitifully unlikely to pan out as his would-be judge and jury are
going to tell the others whether he succeeded or not. All grossly
unfair, why accept those rules?
I will say this though: that's pretty machine-like and predictable,
on the part of those in the peanut gallery, to want to seize the high
ground without earning it. Very typical.
Let them stick to their "computable" beliefs but not hamper the rest
of us. We don't necessarily have time to waste on their views.
> The next question would be: are they (the SuperPenrosePersons) doing quantum computation? But lets go 1 step at a time ;-).
>
> Joe N
Any joe six pack out-thinks today's computers, unless you stack the
deck and put your thumb on the scales.
It's a small percentage of joe six packs who want to believe some pie
in the sky computational process is in charge of it all, with some of
them supposing it's their right to indoctrinate the rest of us.
Others might believe in the spaghetti monster.
Live and let live,
Kirby
|
|
