>> Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that is 
they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same thing.

2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined, that 
is  they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator can do 
the same  thing.
 
Modern large scale enterprise software systems, spanning multiple machines and 
separate processes and linking and coordinating many separate threads of 
execution all working in parallel into much vaster meta-processes, must deal 
with indeterminacy even in todays systems.  In fact this challenge is leading 
to more and more adoption of consensus based algorithms, because in all cases 
the same answer is not always arrived at.
 
I disagree with your supposition that any stochastic process can be mimicked by 
simply introducing a variable into the equation that has its value controlled 
in some random manner; perhaps in many cases this is possible, but that $20 
piece of hardware you mention will not reproduce the same outcomes as the real 
stochastic system does. 
A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of random 
variation, but in reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the 
"randomness" is not random but reflects the fact that many equally valid 
outcomes can evolve form the initial set of conditions.
 
>> And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular 
>> processes and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a 
>> sign of inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for 
>> spaghetti code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write 
>> AAAAAA.... 10,000 times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim 
>> with that sort of thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like 
>> digestion (which has nothing to do with intelligence) has even more 
>> convoluted kludges. 
 
Hehe... don't underestimate the amazing stupidity of programmers... I have seen 
some real exemplars of boneheaded stupidity in my time. Again I disagree. 
Software is horribly inefficient much of the time; optimization is highly 
selective (as it should in fact be) and most code is sub-optimal (which is 
actually fine). Processes grab way too many resources for example on the 
assumption that maybe they might need them  (good for them, bad for the system 
as a whole); bad algorithms abound in code and spaghetti code is still 
everywhere -- even in so called object oriented code.
As an aside our physical brain anatomy as well is a convoluted mess and would 
have never been designed the way it actually is by any intelligent designer; it 
is full of weird 90 degree bends and turns as the original tubular nematode 
proto-brain morphed -- and was shoe-horned -- into the tightly folded (and also 
highly differentiated -- having many sub parts) structure we have inside our 
heads. So I agree with you that naturally evolved systems can in fact be 
convoluted and sometimes absurdly contorted.
 
>> Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex 
>> transient dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster 
>> Gary Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old 
>> chess program?
 
Neither here nor there - IMO -- not sure how this has bearing? The super 
computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching ability and was 
completely specialized in the task of beating him; whilst Gary Kasparov's 
fantastic brain is a general purpose system that is not exclusively concerned 
with winning  a game of chess. 
 
-Chris
  

________________________________
 From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
  


On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


> Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and 
itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by 
any possible program no matter how detailed?
> 
Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that is 
they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same thing.

2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined, that 
is 
they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator can do the 
same 
thing.

And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular processes 
and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a sign of 
inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for spaghetti 
code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write AAAAAA.... 10,000 
times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim with that sort of 
thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like digestion (which has 
nothing to do with intelligence) has even more convoluted kludges. 


Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex 
transient dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary 
Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess 
program?


  John K Clark






  John K Clark



 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to