Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#41

Post by vidarh »

yc-kjh wrote: post #28
yongjik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take it as you don't have any evidence that human brain requires anything other than electromagnetism, then.

Au contraire. Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.) Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "in…

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology)

You're begging the question here. If the world is materialistic, then physical processes can cause intentions, hence this claim is false if your conclusion is false.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#42

Post by vidarh »

yc-kjh wrote: post #38
vidarh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The computer is still doing only syntax, even while appearing to do semantics. Why do you assume people are not doing the same? > But humans really do semantics. Nobody questions this, or challenges it, because it is self-evident. It is no more self evident than your claim that computers don't do semantics. Your argumentation is circular: IF computers can't do semantics, and IF humans do, then clearly the humans an…

You apparently don't understand how computers work. There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

> You apparently don't understand how computers work.

You appears to like to jump to conclusions.

> There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer. And what is the evidence that it can not be applied to a computer?

You are also jumping to the conclusion that, if as you claim, the brain depends on something that can't be explained under the materialistic hypothesis, that a computer cannot, yet you have not even presented an argument for why that would be so.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#43

Post by gphilip »

yc-kjh wrote: post #25
gphilip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. Well we don't know this for sure, do we? "It's an open empirical question whether there are actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine; furthermore, ... it is an open empirical question whether any such processes are involved…

If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a co…

I am not an expert in whatever field "materialism" belongs, so I will defer to accepted knowledge (or lack thereof) as professed by layperson-friendly sources such as Wikipedia. Till the time I really get interested in these fine differences.

May I point out that the tone you use in these discussions is not, in general, of a nature which encourages a lay person to even read what you say, much less to follow up on your ideas? People really do not like being looked down upon, and your writing comes across as quite condescending (among other things). Here are a couple of things from the parent comment to illustrate this:

1. "the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while ..."

Do you see what's wrong with a statement of the form "What I want to prove is obvious to anyone who knows even a little something", and how it might come across as (i) unacceptable hand-waving even in a research paper in the relevant field, and (ii) highly condescending in public discourse?

2. The whole paragraph starting with "You can prove me wrong. ..." comes across as childish. Who am I, anyway, and why should I go to all that trouble to prove you wrong, even if I was somehow capable of doing it? As an analogy, suppose in a discussion on life outside earth I quote current expert consensus as found on Wikipedia as saying that there is potentially life on Europa [1]. And someone retorts saying "No. Prove me wrong. Just build a spaceship which can go bring some life from Europa." Do you see something wrong with such a response? In particular, do you see something wrong with the use of the word "just" here?

3. Your repeated insistence that everyone should read some work and critique it before countering your arguments comes across as obnoxious behaviour.

4. A minor point: it is Nagel, not Nagle. I mention this because I see you making the same mistake in multiple comments.

You seem to have interesting points to make. It would be good if you make them in a way which people find enjoyable to read.

[1] I made this up on the spot. I don't know what the current expert consensus is, so check Wikipedia before taking this as true :).

(Edit: Formatting)

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#44

Post by yc-kjh »

mikhael wrote: post #31
yc-kjh wrote: post #9

Idiocy: My thermostat has three possible beliefs: 1) It is too warm in here. 2) It is too cold in here. 3) It is just about right. Minsky is wrong about AI in the same way that McCarthy was wrong. McCarthy really "believed" that his thermostat had three possible beliefs, and that his thermostat really "believed" one of them at any given time. http://Books.Google.com/books?id=yNJN-_jznw4C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA... Searle debu…

if i understand you correctly, you seem to believe that qualia definitely affects physical reality. we don't know whether that's true or whether qualia is just a byproduct of physical reality, and given the probabilistic nature of what we can observe physically, we may never know.

I think that "qualia" is the wrong question. Please see my other comments on this story.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#45

Post by yc-kjh »

vidarh wrote: post #41
yc-kjh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Au contraire. Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.) Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "in…

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology) You're begging the question here. If the world is materialistic, then physical processes can cause intentions, hence this claim is false if your conclusion is false.

No, I'm not begging the question. In another response, I readily admit that if materialism is true, then AI is a foregone conclusion.

Please prove that mere electromagnetism can cause intentions, goals, and teleology. Limit yourself to Maxwell's equations, and the consequences thereof.

I look forward to your response, but I am not hopeful that you will provide a cogent answer.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#46

Post by glenstein »

yc-kjh wrote: post #25
gphilip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. Well we don't know this for sure, do we? "It's an open empirical question whether there are actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine; furthermore, ... it is an open empirical question whether any such processes are involved…

If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a co…

If a bright-line distinction between syntax and semantics requires a rejection of materialism, to me that is a pretty compelling reason to not draw a distinction between syntax and semantics.

Maybe "most people" ignore the evidence, but I think anigbrowl gave a pretty good response and I'd reiterate his suggestion that Hofstadter and Dennett have given adequate replies to Searle. I would go so far as to say Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach is the most important popular-audience book ever written about AI.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#47

Post by bermanoid »

yc-kjh wrote: post #9

Idiocy: My thermostat has three possible beliefs: 1) It is too warm in here. 2) It is too cold in here. 3) It is just about right. Minsky is wrong about AI in the same way that McCarthy was wrong. McCarthy really "believed" that his thermostat had three possible beliefs, and that his thermostat really "believed" one of them at any given time. http://Books.Google.com/books?id=yNJN-_jznw4C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA... Searle debu…

Are you seriously bringing up Searle's Chinese Room as an argument against AI research? According to Wikipedia, "The Chinese room argument is primarily an argument in the philosophy of mind, and both major computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers consider it irrelevant to their fields." Right on.

First off, philosophy of mind is 100% irrelevant to modern AI research, which is more concerned with creating algorithms that act as if at a human level of intelligence than creating algorithms that recreate human states of mind. You guys might not get that, but every person working on AI does.

Even given that, it's allowing for a very charitable interpretation of Searle's "work": most of us consider Searle to be a fucking idiot at best, a troll in the most likely case. The Chinese Room analogy is tortured, and pretty much assumes dualism from the start - to me, if a dude in a closet pushing papers around could fake understanding Chinese as far as an outside observer is concerned, we'd have solved strong AI, so I don't care whether Searle thinks we've succeeded or not.

Re: Nagel, I don't know his stuff, but having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F, I'm not too interested, there's so much vagueness there that I feel like this is just more bullshit questioning whether we have achieved "real" understanding or just a mechanical approximation. And again, I don't care. I want a program that acts as if it's intelligent, and it needs to pass most normal people's bar for intelligence, not some dipshit philosopher's bar for being human.

Philosophers have always been misinterpreting AI research's goals, which is why nobody in AI has ever paid them any attention, and which is also why they'll never be relevant to anything. Even if they're right, they're not asking questions that anyone cares about.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#48

Post by yc-kjh »

vidarh wrote: post #42
yc-kjh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You apparently don't understand how computers work. There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

> You apparently don't understand how computers work. You appears to like to jump to conclusions. > There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be. Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer. And what is the evidence that it can not be applied to a computer? You are also jumping to the conclusion that, if as you claim, the…

> Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer.

You associate a meaning to the symbol "dog". You think of an animal that barks, wags its tail, chases cats and squirrels, and is happy to see you when you get home. You associate something in the real world what that symbol. (That is the very meaning of doing semantics.)

The computer does nothing of the sort with the symbol "dog".

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#49

Post by yc-kjh »

gphilip wrote: post #43
yc-kjh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a co…

I am not an expert in whatever field "materialism" belongs, so I will defer to accepted knowledge (or lack thereof) as professed by layperson-friendly sources such as Wikipedia. Till the time I really get interested in these fine differences. May I point out that the tone you use in these discussions is not, in general, of a nature which encourages a lay person to even read what you say, much less to follow up on you…

Thank you for correcting me on Nagel's name. I'm embarrassed that I misspelled it, cuz his book is right in front of me.

Re: MIT professor Marvin Minsky wins $540,000 award

#50

Post by vidarh »

yc-kjh wrote: post #25
gphilip wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. Well we don't know this for sure, do we? "It's an open empirical question whether there are actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine; furthermore, ... it is an open empirical question whether any such processes are involved…

If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a co…

> and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while humans clearly do semantics also,

You keep claiming this is "obvious". But it can only be "obvious" if you first accept that the materialistic hypothesis is false or that there is some reasonable definition of "computer" in a purely materialistic universe that does not include a brain and there is no possible alternative structure that can meet a reasonable definition of "doing semantics".

To me, there's no reasonable way of claiming that the answer to this is "obvious". Firstly, the materialistic hypothesis is my default assumption in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it does not hold, secondly, in the absence of evidence against the materialistic hypothesis, it is my default assumption that the brain is a computer.

Thirdly, while I accept that we could define a category "sentient brains" and intentionally exclude it from the category of "computers" for the sake of argument, while I concede that using such definitions it might be possible that there is no alternative means of physically structuring computers that could give the same outcome as the structure of a brain, even then I don't see any justification for why it would be obvious.

Your arguments in this thread, when not circular, rests on a whole cloud of hand-waving away controversial issues behind claims of "obviousness".

Post reply on HN