|
|
Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Posted:
Dec 16, 2011 1:40 AM
|
|
>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.
Nonsense! It was *you* who made the affirmative proclamation that humans perform these feats and they were "easy" to find examples thereof, now when I call you on it you slide into this position.
>Qualified people" means nothing here really.
Since I'm arguing with one who easily confuses solving chess problems with "non-computable" feats of derring-do, I'll have to concede that point.
But I'll reiterate that granting "there are things that humans do that are a mystery and a wonder" does not lead to therefore "they are in principle non-algorithmic".
That's right - if you are claiming the latter, you have to do more than talk a lot about the former.
>I'm not willing to concede that those without evidence >(Penrose has plenty -- lots that humans do, computers >cannot and have not
Penrose does not have "plenty". He made a curious argument based on a very specific (mistaken) way of viewing Godel Incompleteness Theorem(s). Here's a flat out rebuttable that for me says it best:
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html
I'd say the situation regarding these claimed powers to transcend Turing computability in human symbolic reasoning is much more akin to claims of flying saucers and ESP - show 'em if you got 'em. Factor me some really big numbers in an instant.
Joe N
|
|
