________________________________ From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:17 PM Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 8/27/2013 3:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> you cannot prove that things in the brain happen because of some proximate >> definable and identifiable cause or otherwise they must therefore result by >> a completely random process. > > >>>Bullshit. Axioms don't need proof, and the most fundamental axiom in all >>> of logic is that X is Y or X is not Y. Everything else is built on top of >>> that. And only somebody who was absolutely desperate to prove the innate >>> superiority of humans over computers would try to deny it. > You seem confused... the brain is not an axiom... it is one of the most > complex systems we know about in the observed universe. > >> In a system as layered, massively parallel and highly noisy as the brain >> your assumptions of how it works are naïve and border on the comical. The >> brain is not a based on a simple deterministic algorithm in which the chain >> of cause and effect is always clear. > > >>> Although reductionism has recently received a lot of bad press from >>> supermarket tabloids and new age gurus the fact remains that if you want to >>> study something complex you've got to break it into simpler parts and then >>> see how the parts fit together. And in the final analysis things happen for >>> a reason or they don't happen for a reason; and if they did then it's >>> deterministic and if they didn't then it's random. > > Perhaps your final analysis is a bit too shallow and self limiting. Why you > cling so tenaciously to this need for definitive causality chains (or else > it must be complete randomness) is amusing, but is not misguided. You cannot > show definitive causality for most of what goes on in most of the universe. > You can hypothesize a causal relationship perhaps, but you cannot prove one > for all manner of phenomenon arising out of chaotic systems. The brain is a > noisy chaotic system and you are attempting to impose your Newtonian order > on it. > > Your approach does not map well onto the problem domain. And what you say > has no predictive value; it does not help unravel how the brain works... or > how the mind arises within it. > > > It does help. There's no evidence that the brain can't be understood as a > parallel computer plus some randomness.
>>Indeed, there's a huge amount of evidence that the brain can be understood as a parallel computer + randomness. Furthermore, we can even engineer artificial neural networks to perform tasks that were previously only achievable by humans. Of course, Church-Turing tells us that if this things can be done with a recurrent neural network, they can necessarily also be done with any other Turing complete device. The intelligence part is not so mysterious, although we are missing some algorithms. >>But then there's the hard problem, and I wonder if it's related to randomness. I always had the feeling that it is, but I might be falling trap to the tendency to think that two mysteries must be related (like people also do with consciousness and QM). But they might be. I feel it should be added that the brain is also a very noisy and seemingly chaotic system. It is not just massively parallel, but it is also very noisy and we are discovering -- in fact, just now discovering (and DARPA by the way is very interested in finding out more) -- the algorithms the neocortex seems to use to arrive at -- or focus in and amplify a signal. In order to understand and be able to begin to model the dynamic brain (I prefer at this point to call this the mind -- i.e. the dynamic sensations, experiences, feelings, thoughts and perceptions arising within the physical brain as a result of the dynamic interactions of the many billions -- even many trillions when we examine potential pathways of connection -- of individual neuronal actors and the coalitions of such actors acting in concert with other possibly distant neurons. > The problem with John's formulation > is he insists there is either *a* reason or not *a* reason. >> Yes, I think John has a blind spot around this. I think causality is just a type of model that might approximate the truth but will never be the whole truth. Furthermore, it's a human thought tool. It has no reality status. And my argument is that it is not the right tool for the job - -or more precisely cannot be the only tool you bring to this particular job site. Other mental/logic tools are needed including methodologies for dealing with chaotic noisy systems. In a chaotic system -- such as say our planetary atmosphere to stop talking about the brain for a second. A small event can become amplified and focused into a very significant ultimate outcome -- the classic statement that a butterflies wings flapping in some jungle rainforest can ultimately trigger a hurricane, with the initial small movement of air molecules chaotically interacting with other air molecules until by some chain of events the initial signal becomes amplified into the force of a hurricane (with lots of co-factors operating of course) In this arbitrary and somewhat contrived example of how chaotic systems operate it would never be possible -- at least in any practical manner -- to work back from the hurricane and be able to trace its original cause back to the butterfly wing flap. Just the combinatorial explosion alone would doom such an attempt in its very initial phases. Even when there is a cause -- especially in vast and chaotic systems -- it is often the case that it cannot be worked back to from the end result. So that all we can do is to hypothesize or give a probabilistic type answer at best. We cannot establish with certainty what the cause of something actually was and to show the step by step linkage that chains the outcome back to the originating event. > Hardly anything > can be thought of as having *a* reason. In the case of human behavior, each > instance almost certainly has many different causes, some in memory, some in > the immediate environment, and some which are random and don't have an > effective cause. I think of the person, brain/body/etc, plus immediate > environment narrow down the probable actions to a few, e.g. 1 to 20, and > then some quantum randomness realizes one of those. So it's not > deterministic like Laplace's clockwork world, but it's not > anything-is-possible either. Or, putting it another way, the Everything has a structure. That's one of the reasons why I like Bruno's ideas (as far as I understand them). Comp explains why there is a structure and even give it a shape. Meta-physically it's much better than causality, but currently worse at making predictions about the real world. I think John only values the latter and is not willing to listen to things that address the first. Telmo. > Brent > > > > >> You can copy the symbols on a sheet of paper , but without understanding >> Hungarian you will never be impacted by the meaning or sensations that poem >> is seeking to convey. > > >>>True but irrelevant. I never claimed we would someday understand how to >>> make an AI more intelligent than ourselves, I only said that someday such an >>> AI would get made. > > And how are you sure it has not already been achieved. To go by some of the > recent DARPA solicitations they are really hot on the trail of trying to > develop/discover smart algorithms modeled on the neocortext's own algorithms > -- especially in the area of pattern matching. > > What I said about needing to understand that which you are studying in order > to be able to really be able to manipulate, extend, emulate, simulate etc. > is not only true -- as you admit -- but is also relevant. With no > understanding of the symbol stream you have no knowledge of what to do with > the symbol stream passing across your view; you are unable to operate with > it in any kind of meaningful manner. It is like looking at DNA sequences > flashing by you... ACTG... with no insight into what they symbols mean, do > or control. > > As I earlier agreed -- black box testing has its place and it is possible to > discover some aspects of a system through its external interface, but to > really know a system and to be able to describe it one must open it up and > actually study it. A white box methodology is required. > > This applies to understanding the brain as well.. it is and will remain a > mystery until we go in and figure out its fine grained workings. > > -Chris > > >> 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. > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6613 - Release Date: 08/27/13 > > -- > 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. -- 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.
