On Thu, Aug 29, 2013  Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We can hypothesize causality and demonstrate a probability perhaps, and
> there may in fact exist a causal relationship.

Then it's deterministic.

> > But if it cannot be demonstrated and traced all the way down the
> incredibly long chain of individual events

Then it's deterministic but we don't know it's deterministic.

> To give an example say the test subject almost lost their life when they
> were putting down red triangle on the road to warn on-coming traffic that
> their vehicle was disabled on the side of the road. It is plausible that
> for that test subject the flashing red triangle would result in a veritable
> brain storm of neural activity associated with the recall of that memory.

And that is very different from the way computers work, they make no use of
memory whatsoever which is why computer manufacturers don't bother
installing memory chips in their product.

And ridiculously weak arguments of this sort are why I don't believe you
when you say you are emotionally neutral on the human/computer superiority

> > You may not be impressed by big numbers

I am very impressed by big numbers but only if one side of a argument can
supply them and the other side can not, that is not the case in the
superiority issue, or if there is then the imbalance is not in the
direction you think it is.

> The complexity of trying to solve any problem grows exponentially more
> difficult as the number of independent processes that can effect an outcome
> grows.

Not all the processes in the brain are independent and in fact most are
not. And if something as stupid as random mutation and natural selection
can do it then intelligence can do it too, and it won't take 3 billion
years either.

> >>>> if something has no cause then by definition of the word its random.
>>> >>> I am not referring to random events,
>> >> Then you're referring to something that is deterministic.
> No I am not.

Then you're referring to something that didn't happen for a reason and
didn't  happen for no reason. Then of course you're referring to gibberish.

> Many outcomes are the result of huge numbers of inputs

If it's overflowing with reasons then it's deterministic in spades!

 > some of which may result from chaotic events

Chris, humans only started to appreciate the true nature of chaos in the
late 1970's because it was only then that computers became powerful enough
to tell them about it. My beliefs are not random, they have reasons, and
trying to use chaos to prop up the human side of the human/computer
superiority issue is yet another reason I don't believe you when you say
you are emotionally neutral on the matter.

> if you are unable to show causality -- if you cannot prove the causality
> at each single step in the process and of each parallel thread running in
> it and of all the interactions that are occurring between all the parallel
> threads all you can do is state you belief that the outcome was produced by
> a deterministic process. You are unable to prove causation.

OK, then I can't prove that event X happened for a cause; but I most
certainly CAN prove that event X happened for a cause OR event X did NOT
happen for a cause.

And trying to wiggle out of one of the most basic axioms of logic such as
the above just to hold onto your predetermined beliefs is yet another
reason I don't believe you when you say you are emotionally neutral on
the human/computer
superiority issue.

> All you can do is believe in it.

I believe that the Goldbach Conjecture is true but I can't prove it so my
belief could be incorrect.  However I can prove that there is a even
integer greater than 2 that can not be expressed as the sum or 2 prime
numbers or there is not such a number. You believe there is not such a
number and not not such a number, in other words there is such a number AND
there is not such a number. In other words you believe in nonsense.

>> Watson was constructed in such a way that it was capable of extracting
>> facts from its environment, and if its method for doing this were not
>> deterministic what it would be extracting would not be facts but gibberish.

Like hell I am!

 > Have you ever heard of self learning algorithms


> Even code -- the instruction sets -- themselves are increasingly the
> outcomes of Darwinian processes.

Yes, and Darwinian Evolution extracts facts from the environment, in
particular facts on how to get genes into the next generation; of course it
did so in a slow and clumsy way but until it got around to inventing brains
it was the only way it could get done.

> it deliberately dropped the notion that the problem could be solved using
> deterministic heuristic approach.

That's just stupid. If your mind wasn't deterministic not only would you
fail to find answers you couldn't even find the question.

 >in your mind if something is not deterministic it must be random.

It's in my mind because I took logic 101 and on day 1 I was told something
I already knew, X is Y or X is not Y.

> I certainly never made the claim Watson was a random number generator

You can't have it both ways, if Watson is not a random number generator
then it does things for a reason!

> >> The fact not assumption that the very fastest signals in the brain move
>> at about 100 meters a second and many are far slower, and the fact not
>> assumption that the speed of light is 300,000,000 meters a second.
> you have shown is that the speed of light is faster than the
> electro-chemical pulses in our wet ware.


> You have not shown how you will ever understand the fine grained working
> of the brain.

Me? I'm probably not smart enough to understand the fine grained workings
of the human brain, but the computers will be.

  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.

Reply via email to