On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>I understand that's your opinion and of course you know mine. > > No, I really don't quite understand what you believe or what points you are trying to make. "Modeling humans with computational processes" (your term) and doing "non-computable things" are wildly different things to consider. >
Not wildly different.
If you have an hypothesis that human intelligence is at bottom computational, then it would behoove you to get your Turing Machine to pass your Turing Test, pronto.
That'd be a great way to win converts, not irrelevant at all.
In the meantime, it doesn't appear that computers have any hope of being smart enough to take over the job of proving difficult (or even easy) theorems, out of the blue as it were.
We can enlist their aid, and do so daily, but it's not a matter of thinking we're in line for replacement, 'Terminator' movies not withstanding. Fantasies of "turning it over to machines" are irresponsible and immature.
You're talking about a branch of science fiction, a way of writing about humans. Neither side here is more than that.
There's nothing established about "how humans think" really, in terms of what's non-computable or what ain't.
Neuroscience doesn't have the corner on that discourse either, just one more booth among many at the brainiac fair.
> You seem to constantly conflate the two. > The only connection would be that were humans known to be essentially performing non-trivial tasks that drew on > powers transcending computational processes, well, that > would be something. (I'd say your examples all fall well short, and some just don't even make sense in that specific context.) Its really hard to even come up with meaningful examples of any performance task that is clearly in principle "non-computable". Violating complexity (factoring really fast, solving TSP really fast) I suppose would count. >
I'm saying that would be nothing, as many see it, as in what did you expect?
What's remarkable are people expostulating how surprising it is, and saying what a breakthrough it would be if the mundane were true. Weird folks, seems to me.
> Statements like "not hardy to come up with problems no computer can solve" also completely muddy the discussion. That might be interesting if it were impossible to come up with a problem that some human couldn't solve. But its not and so what? > > Ramanujan certainly strikes me as Edgar Cayce of math, but what does it lead you to believe? Does the mysteriousness of it all make you believe that these "non-computational" processes must be at world? Evidently > yes, but it seems a very illogical position to me.
"Non-computational processes" sounds oxymoronic, at least a little, but I suppose "process" should be allowed.
Michelangelo had his process, as did Leonardo or whatever. Whether these "processes" were "computational" cannot be asserted categorically by any but a pretentious few who think they somehow monopolize the language.
All I've been saying in this thread is I don't appreciate it when screenwriters mislead too badly and make it look like humans have superpowers they don't have, or machines either.
Pretending machines are on the brink of being our "prover bots" who just go around proving everything that needs proving is of course naive in the extreme and I assume you don't seriously think that.
> Why > are we in this modern era not always walking around in profound amazement at the miracles of our own technology? I'd say its just the dulling caused by constant exposure. For people not so dulled, it might be just as easy to convince them that supernatural forces were necessarily involved. >
I'm in profound amazement at technology period, but I include in that word the non-humanly derived (such as humans themselves), the beehives and spiderwebs (we collect spiders at my place, use them instead of fly tape).
> I suspect Ramanujan had his own methods that unfortunately remained a trade secret. Riemann was similar. They may have had certain brain centers that developed in ways quite out along the long tail. > But in general, highly developed and effective search techniques through vast spaces of possibilities will always appear miraculous if their workings are hidden. No "non-computable" powers are needed. >
That's completely speculative and only shows how eager you are to interpolate faux evidence and narratives where there is none.
In fact Ramanujan himself couldn't explain the derivations in so many cases.
To write him off as some kind of snake oil guy is just to show how you've stacked the deck. If you do something non-computable, then you're just a circus act, so why should we bother with you?
Kinda circular, as in circle-the-wagons over-protective.
Your position has the tell tale signs of having high bias coupled with (consequent to) inherent double standards and inconsistencies.
> Which also leads to why you would bring up chess? Chess is showing that with continual development chess programs are now beating the very best humans - with more development I expect they will completely dominate (I'm being generous - many would say they completely dominate already. Statistically they certainly do - most PCs still in service can run a chess program that will beat most humans.) >
Exactly. Within the confines of the game of chess, the brute force algorithms have been fine tuned. The Jeopardy stuff is looking amenable too. Search engines have come a long way.
So now the AI crowd musters all these ducks and puts them in a row that supposedly proves their 'Terminator' scenario: the on-rush of machine intelligence is soon to sweep you sorry humans aside.
That's the syndrome in a nutshell: some desire to assert that humans are a subservient subset of intelligent being and those who have mastered computers are mastering the secret of that intelligence.
It's all sleight of hand hooey of course. There's no reason to feel inferior to your PC or grovel at the feet of your Mac (were your Mac to have feet).
Your attitudes typify an ethnicity I would say. Thanks for reminding me of these memes, as I don't encounter this type of thinking every day.