"Dan Minette" wrote
> From: Joshua Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I have to chuckle whenever I read statements like "the human mind must
> > transcend the limitations of the universe, if we can defeat things like
> > Godel's theorems". Or we're just reasonably efficient filters of random
> crap
> > that - after much training - approximates things like following logical
> > progressions.
>
> How do these filters work? They cannot work algoritmically, that's been
> proven rigorously.
Has it? What is the proof?
All known physics is technically computable, so the brain can't
perform non-algorithmic processes without using unknown physics.
> Penrose didn't prove it, but he has some nice proofs of
> the limits of algorithmic proofs in his book "the Emperor's New Mind"
>
>
> The problem is that the human mind doesn't have time to go through and
> eliminate all the bad crap to come up with the right algorithm. Take the
> game of chess I just played against a human. I know Dennett uses this as
a
> counter example, but there is a problem with his example. When algorithms
> are used, one only goes 4 deep after exploring the same lines 3 deep.
That's false. A brute force algorithm would work that way but the actual
algorithms used pare the tree. Some lines are explored 8 deep and others
only 3 deep.
> Humans can see a subtle 8 deep combo and miss a simple 1 mover at the same
> time.
>
That's because we don't consider all possible initial moves. We recognise
patterns
in the relative positions of the pieces. If a good move doesn't fit those
patterns
it doesn't get considered.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
