Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
thenewatlantis.com
Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#2This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this.
The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#3This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Nope. Go read Penrose.
There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#4This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Nope. Go read Penrose. There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
I googled for tessellation infinite plane algorithm but could not find any pertinent information.
There are problems that the brain can solve that one can prove an algorithm cannot. That to me is a bold claim. Could you point to material I could read on this?
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Go read Penrose. There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
I googled for tessellation infinite plane algorithm but could not find any pertinent information. There are problems that the brain can solve that one can prove an algorithm cannot. That to me is a bold claim. Could you point to material I could read on this?
It's a confusion of the algorithm that the brain implements with the algorithm that implements the brain.
Penrose fills in the gaps with quantum woo. He's much beloved by people who can't quite bring themselves to quote Deepak Chopra.
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#6This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Nope. Go read Penrose. There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
The Emperor's New Mind (and the followup whose name I forget).
There's a rather scratchy recorded documentary here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVq39QbFQXE
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_tile n 1966, Wang's student Robert Berger solved the domino problem in the negative. He proved that no algorithm for the problem can exist, by showing how to translate any Turing machine into a set of Wang tiles that tiles the plane if and only if the Turing machine does not halt. The undecidability of the halting problem (the problem of testing whether a Turing machine eventually halts) then implies the undecidability of Wang's tiling problem.
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I googled for tessellation infinite plane algorithm but could not find any pertinent information. There are problems that the brain can solve that one can prove an algorithm cannot. That to me is a bold claim. Could you point to material I could read on this?
It's a confusion of the algorithm that the brain implements with the algorithm that implements the brain. Penrose fills in the gaps with quantum woo. He's much beloved by people who can't quite bring themselves to quote Deepak Chopra.
Thank you for the straight-shot no-nonsense clarification. :)
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#8This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Nope. Go read Penrose. There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
Nope. Can I suggest you read Penrose again with a little more critical thought.
There are problems it is possible to prove are not computable. But can you prove that human beings can solve them?
Tessellation of the infinite plane? Please demonstrate a person that can solve this (i.e. not that they have a > 99.9% chance of being able to do it, or that you can show they can start out pretty successfully and you assume they'll always stay ahead of the game).
Bear in mind when working out if a computer can solve a given problem (i.e. is it mathematically computable), we're not trying to work out if it can ever solve it, or even if it can solve it in infinitely many cases, or even in an arbitrarily high proportion of cases. We're working out if it can be proven that it is (not) guaranteed to find a correct solution in all cases. There's just no way to make those judgements of a human being.
So instead, mathematical analysis of computation is compared against intuition arguments from the evidence that human beings have good, reliable strategies for solving some of them. Unsurprisingly, the brain comes off pretty well in that comparison!
Penrose was big on handwaving and appeal to quantum magic, but not very good on the specific arguments to back up his claim.
I found this article to be a huge bag of misconceptions about AI, computation, and the actual claims of AI professionals. As an argument against hyperbolic media mischaracterisation, it might be reasonable. But like Penrose, it manages a long and condescending argument from intuition that fails to take seriously the actual claims being made.
[Edit: for clarity and spelling]
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#9This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Nope. Go read Penrose. There are problems that the brain can solve, but you can (provably) show that an algorithm cannot. For example - tesselation on an infinite plane.
Such overconfidence. There is no generally accepted evidence that anything physical, whether brain or something else, can compute something a TM cannot compute. Penrose's claims are conjectures at best and pseudoscience at worst.
Re: Why Minds Are Not Like Computers (2009)
#10This is why people not trained in CS shouldn't speculate on it, when they do you get garbage like this. The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer. Before modern computers there was a human job, called, computer. One who performs computations. The analogy of the brain to a computer is perfect, because the brain is a computer.
Except the author does in fact have a BS in CS. IMO, the brain does far more than performing computation. Sure humans were once "computers," but our ability to perform computation is not a valid argument to that computation, or the inner workings of our mind, being the same as digital computers performing computation. You failed to look up the author's credentials and I feel like you may have also failed to read the entire piece.