It is currently Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:14 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Agreed so far?
Post #1 Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:15 pm 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 116
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 27
Rank: NR
I am not sure you want to go there, raise the issue of "think" and "consciousness".
oh, but i do! between 1976 and 1978 it was my life's work until i had to do a proper job for a living, and didnt pick it up again until 2010 whence i became one of many ethnically cleansed boat-people sociopolitical refugees and had to find another pasttime to amuse myself, which is when i took up golf again.

Just like my Go, my across the board talent for golf is a shadow of its former self (but never got better than grade B anyway), but i have learned 1000% more about the subject from studying the writings of great masters of the past and present. I know what to do, i just can't persuade this creaking old body and brain to do what it's told.

Golf and Go are each so soul-destroying that they are only fit for masochists, so my head turned toward a topic that had piqued my curiosity 54 years ago when i was 14, and i was rather surprised to discover that i could figure the whole thing out in just a few months of Googling - and even describe it on a single A4 page, because the lineage is so direct and unvarying. That was when i stated making videos again, to share the delightful discovery with others.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Q2h2UALN0h

However, nobody watched them because i didn't advertise in enough right places.

Besides, only one person i know believes me that the entire history of all the world's religions goes back 37,000 years to the magical number 29, plus or minus 2. And that has everything to do with think and consciousness.

Having been there, done that and got the teeshirt, i turned back to Go, which brought me here, or rather, there, since i'm only here because i'm sure the thoughtpolice would judge that the issue you raise is off-topic as far as Go is concerned.

Are you really wanting to claim "hardware makes a difference" << to a computer program in the abstract >>

100%, insofar as real-time operation is concerned - and a von Newmann computer without an infinite memory would be almost useless

If something is computable, it is computable on a Turing machine, yes? << just very slow >>


there is no definition of computable; Euripedes and Godel both proved that and Turing ducked the issue.
the class of recursive functions is Turing-computable not just by a TM, but also a Post Productions System, or Markov algorithm, (or a GEEDT ...yea! :))

Agreed so far?

not on "just very slow" because it depends on the speed of hardware state transitions. a TM is not as fast as DeepThought because it's strictly serial, but i can envisage a Tensor Flow collection of TMs that is faster than Alfadog.

as a matter of fact, i've got one inside my thick skull right now.

_________________
i ink, therefore i spam
"J'ai toujours succombe a la tentation de raisonner pour comprendre" - Peter Hoeg

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Agreed so far?
Post #2 Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:42 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 834
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 129
djhbrown wrote:
I am not sure you want to go there, raise the issue of "think" and "consciousness".
oh, but i do! between 1976 and 1978 it was my life's work until i had to do a proper job for a living, and didnt pick it up again until 2010 whence i became one of many ethnically cleansed boat-people sociopolitical refugees and had to find another pasttime to amuse myself, which is when i took up golf again./quote]

OK, you say you want to go there. And then you ducked the question (elsewhere in this forum) by giving an example of a one celled organism, convinced that we would see that as simple mechnism, not "thinking" or "consciousness". And you'd be right about that, BUT (a very big but) you perhaps think that settles the matter.

What I say is that we would be hard pressed to define some hard/fast boundary between "thinking" and "consciousness" and not. That is going to be a matter of degree and not kind. For example, would you say that a bonobo "thinks" and is "conscious"? How about a gorilla? Then how about a gibbon or an orangutan? How about a capuchin monkey? Let's leave the primates and ask the question, a dog, a cat? And so on. Where do we expect to be able to draw a firm line?.

Suppose you are faced with an "intelligence" that is unable or unwilling to communicate with you. All you can observe is its behavior solving problems. How do you propoese to determine whether it is "thinking", whether it is "conscious"?

How do you determine even for yourself? Let's use go for an example. And common L&D situations. The beginning player needs to think about these, read them out, but with experience the common patterns are "learned", the experienced player simply "knows" the answer. If ASKED to explain, yes, can go back and demonstrate by a rational process, but that is NOT the same thing as having made the real time decision by that process. I have the sense that you feel that it is, in which case, explain WHY you think so.

We do lots (make lots of decisions) using fast "learned" bypass calculators. As a social animal, you might just know/pick up on "that person doesn't like me" but be hard pressed to explain with reasons << if asked, you might be able to come up with some, but isn't that after thought? Why are you sure those reasons were used in some rational process to make the initial determination? >>

Maybe think again about go. The advanced player "sees" a move and then confirms "works" or "doesn't work" by reading. Why do feel that a rational process was necessarily involved in that "seeing"?

PS: The Turing machine (or equivalent Wang, which I will use as the concrete example) does not need an infinite memory in advance. Just an UNBOUNDED memory. The Wang, for example, needs stacks that cannot overflow. But all that means is that if/when the current limit is reached, more can be added. At any time, the size is still finite.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Agreed so far?
Post #3 Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:26 am 
Judan

Posts: 6027
Liked others: 1404
Was liked: 2316
Mike Novack wrote:
Suppose you are faced with an "intelligence" that is unable or unwilling to communicate with you. All you can observe is its behavior solving problems. How do you propose to determine whether it is "thinking", whether it is "conscious"?


Rats, when they come to a T intersection in a maze, may stop and look back and forth to the left and right before making the turn. Even behaviorists called that "vicarious trial and error". :)

_________________
"Drooling Banjos"

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Agreed so far?
Post #4 Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:54 pm 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 116
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 27
Rank: NR
Mike wrote:
settles the matter.


You may say that, Mattie; i cannot possibly comment.

i never in a million years would make such an outlandish statement. we are only kayaking around the iceberg, and haven't even got around to climbing on its tip, let alone exploring its profound depths. many have tried, and some spew out nonsense like Professor Dame whatshername blathering on about flickering flames.

for my 2 cents (i can't afford 10), the best explanation so far comes from the pen of Antonio Damasio, although Christoph Koch and Dan Dennet have some pretty astute insights too.

please have a look at my online maths class (Antidote to School), where you will learn that unbounded means the same as (potentially) infinite... or rather you would have if i had put such a lesson in but i havent so you wont.

as to rats, any sailor worth his salt can tell you they are smarter than H.notverySapiens, because they know when it's time to quit.

if the subject of consciousness truly intrigues you, may i recommend googling Chomsky and Brenner on the subject, for they have some very very wise words about it that anyone can understand straight away. i'd give you chapter and verse if i could remember the urls, but google has a better memory than me for digging up old stuff. it's not really worth bothering with my own pathetic effort, as it's unfinished and all the others i mentioned are streets ahead of me anyway. still, now i've brought it up :) here's the abridged version, written for the newborn son of a friend to read when he learns to do so, so that he can get the whole story straight before the spin doctors and snake oil salesmen grab him by the goolies as they have done for 400+ generations and steal his heart to win his body
http://lcipm.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/th ... pirit.html

as one goat said to the the other, the film is not bad, but it's not as good as the book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lsQUq9 ... Q2h2UALN0h


and... word of warning.... any mention of Go in here is going to be trodden on by the police, because that would mean it's not off topic and no refugees from Go threads are not allowed in, as it says on the door.

pps. please preview your posts and check your links before pressing the red button, as it's very confusing to readers when you half quote someone cos you put the bracket in the wrong place, as i typo too all the time

_________________
i ink, therefore i spam
"J'ai toujours succombe a la tentation de raisonner pour comprendre" - Peter Hoeg

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: A greed too far?
Post #5 Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:27 am 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 116
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 27
Rank: NR
A greed too far? Not on your Nelly; you Kant make it up.

His Tory repeats once more unto the breach, crying...

Once upon a time, in a far-away place called Metroland, where it always rains, was born a little girl called Alfadolfa.

She wasn't pretty, she wasn't smart, but she was a very determined little girl, albeit a bit tense, or you bet her be careful.

Metroland was beyond the Paile, at the end of the Betjman line far away from the golden West End where rollers were the basic transport of the pseuds, but safer than the slippery grease her lover Demosthenes' daddy had exiled himself from before the sheet hit the fandango when sharp-eyed smooth-voiced sharp-edged-underneath Kris Tea 'n Laggard, the bloodthirsty Queen of Imfs ("let them eat brioche"), more terrible than Ivanor Carroll's Queen of Hearts, sent her Stoßtruppen squaddies into a, then s, to demand back the money with interest she had loansharked the witless idle geeks which she knew damn well they could never repay, deliberately so that to avoid the debtor's prison, they would sell their grandmothers and all their lands, all their whitewashed cottages by the sea, and all the shirts off their own backs for pennies in the dollar, to her gunattheheadand one in the guts sugar daddy bonkers, swanning around in ucantmakeitup prizewinning copies of ziggurat temples in Overditchland.

But if Alfadolfa wasn't pretty, her older sister Zena Warrior was an ugly, jealous sister - a bloated quadruped Mountain of Carloads of big patterned stones, who fought and slew every botty she met.

Once, Zena even tried to squeeze a German girl, but instead fell down a ladder into the slavering maw of a clog.

"See, me!" cried Zena, "Ai....!" (she always screamed in French, don't ask me why, it just fits) and put herself into a tarry pit of death.

Demosthenes wasn't going to let Zena try that on with Alfadolfa, so he hired a hill-climber from the frozen north to teach her how to ascend - "go on dunnce, just do it" - by playing with herself, which she enjoyed greatly without going blind.

Soon, Alfadolpha was big enough and strong enough to give Gooey Lee Ozzwald a nasty surprise, and six months later corry rear Lease Idol up the andy jacksie to the dismay of Haley Comet and her chum Leeman Brothers War and all the careerites.

Nine months of secret gestation passed, whilst all was quiet on the Western Front, until one cold January day, Alfadolfa put on a cloak of masterful darkness and sneaked into eastern cyberspace where she fiddled and diddled 6 of the best - no, wait, it was 60! - as a warmup Edward Bernays trick to induce the sheep to follow, gasping in admiration, in preparation for an all-out a salt on China by the East India Tea Company that sold opium, fronted by the reaser submarine.

May it would be, and long may she rain when Alfadolfa and abseiling bonkers Boris Rules the Waves for Boudicca to once again paint the world pink and wave the Onion Jack off up Europa's nose out of joint.

They shall fight them on, the bitches, they shall frighten them on the playing fields of Eton, to get a Palace bigger than his grand-dads' Blenheim (the only reason he dunnit), they shall never surrender.

_________________
i ink, therefore i spam
"J'ai toujours succombe a la tentation de raisonner pour comprendre" - Peter Hoeg

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group