Author |
Topic: Revenge of the Right Brain (Read 2691 times) |
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender: 
Posts: 1825
|
 |
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #25 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 7:28am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Another interesting article; thanks for sharing them, amichail. And don't be put off by the onslaught of criticisms from the members here; they just can't help themselves. In fact, if we hid the names of posters and presented one of their arguments in a similar discussion/thread a few months from now, they'd probably disagree with the points made! 
No, seriously, one of the great things about this community is the level of expertise; I know that a good number of the regular posters here rarely play their trump card by admitting their credentials in that particular field. Certainly in most discussions of a scientific nature you can be assured that among all of the members there is at least one person that is currently working, or is in touch with, the cutting-edge ideas from that area/discipline. For example, one of the posters here more than dabbles in the field of A.I..
|
|
 IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #26 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 7:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Alright, I will assume that the proof is good. Not only computer scientists, but also formalists are estatic about this, for the method used by the computer to prove is formalism. But:
1) The proof the program produced was not a human proof. It took several days effort by a human to convert it into something understandable.
2) If they had put the same effort into producing a program that could create images, I have little doubt that they would have a program by now that could create, with only a little direction for content at the start (much as the choice of theorem to prove is provided to the proving program), original images that invoke the same "artistic" response that human paintings do. In fact, this is almost possible now.
3) As has already been said, even when fully developed, this and similar programs will not at all replace the need for mathematicians. Rather, it will simply provide another tool in the mathematician's toolbox. Contrary to what the article suggests, it will not put an end to mathematicians proving things themselves either. In order for mathematicians to guide development of a theory, they need a feel for what is possible and what is not. The only way to get this feel is to understand how proofs in the theory work, how things inter-relate. The only way to get this feel is with hands-on experience. By the time programs reach the state where they can make the sorts of decisions required to develop a theory themselves, they will have achieved true intelligence.
Sir Col - only one of the "no"s was for you and your pronouncement that most mathematicians simply re-iterate proofs rather than producing new ones. The rest were for the whole false dichotomy between "left-brain" and "right-brain". While it is true that most mathematicians do not produce major new theories, this is to be expected. What leads to major new discoveries is only partly intellect and creativity. A large portion is simply the luck of having chosen the right problem or problems to work on, to suggest the course leading to the discovery.
And I think you greatly overstate the problem with the "establishment" repressing the new idea. Far from repression, many new ideas are granted quick, wide-spread acceptance. Consider the two greatest "paradigm-shifts" (a terminology I find almost as inappropriate as "left-brained" and "right-brained") in the history of mathematics: The introduction of the idea of "proof" by Thales of Miletus, and the introduction of analytic geometry by Rene DeCartes. I have not heard of Thales having to overcome opposition to his idea. Indeed, as a merchant, he probably would not have bothered with it if his ideas had met great opposition. His mathematics was only a hobby. And analytic geometry was met with immediate acceptance, and even great joy by mathematicians of DeCartes day.
I have not heard of any great repression of Calculus when it was introduced, either. There was a lot of hostility, but it was over who got to claim credit. There was also resistance, but this resistance was based on very sound mathematical reasoning. Calculus as introduced was full of fuzzy thinking and ludicrous concepts (much of which are still to be found in the 0.999... thread;)). It would take over a century before all the problems were ironed out, and Cauchy set calculus on a firm footing. Resistance, though, is not the same thing as repression.
While mathematical history has its share of bitterness and repression, it is far from universal.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #27 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 7:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, thank you for sharing, amichail. 
Icarus, Sir Col is probably referring to the persecution, both real and later merely perceived, of Cantor. And by 'resistance' to the concepts of calculus, I take it that you mean that of Bishop Berkeley, whose perceptions of 'truth' were probably influenced as much by his strong religious beliefs and instilled awe of the infinite as by any innate hunger for mathematical objectivity. As for your abhorrence of 'paradigm shifts', I too believe that they belong more to the subjective realm of the senses than to the objective world of pure ideas.
on Jan 29th, 2005, 3:01am, towr wrote:
And people are 'just' a bunch of atoms. The brain 'just' a bunch of neurons and connections (switches and wires). |
|
And in what year do you think computers will become aware (of their own existence) in the sense that humans are? In other words, when will the Halting Problem be replaced in university textbooks by the Terminating Problem? (LOL) Do you believe that there is a gene for consciousness?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2005, 5:50am by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #28 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 7:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 7:28am, Sir Col wrote:| And don't be put off by the onslaught of criticisms from the members here; they just can't help themselves. |
|
I had not thought of my posts as being critical of amichail. He asked for our thoughts, and we have been giving them. By replying to his posts, and each others, and by his replying to ours, we each sharpen our own concepts and clarify our thinking on the matter. The freedom to say "this is wrong", and explain why we believe so, without having to worry about hurt feelings is crucial to an open discussion and the search for truth. (Insults are another matter - if someone cannot defend their own position without insulting their opposition, then they have no position worth defending. But no one in this thread has been insulting that I have noticed.)
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #29 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 9:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 3:01am, towr wrote:
And people are 'just' a bunch of atoms. The brain 'just' a bunch of neurons and connections (switches and wires). |
|
Your first statement is plainly wrong. The second I agree with.
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #30 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 9:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
T&B, I wasn't just thinking about Cantor's treatment, but I believe that it occurs at the genesis of all the greatest "transistions". For example, we only read about the praise and accolades bestowed on the inventors of the non-Euclidean geomteries. However, prior to this birth we know from some of Gauss's letters that the he was fully aware that no contradiction would exist by adapting the fifth postulate. In fact, he secretly developed a consistent geometry where the sum of angles in a triangle are less than two right angles. But through fear of how it may have damaged his reputation he was reluctant to publish. After all, no credible mathematician would question the soundness of Euclidean geometry!
Icarus, my only reason for saying that was to warn amichail that it was not personal. Yet to someone new, every single post you make being opposed by one or two other people could be interpreted as such; as regulars, we are fairly immune to the challenges as we know the heart (and expertise) behind each retort. We have already discussed this as being one of the fine qualities of this community, but sometimes we may need to be a little less aggressive with new members. But once we've lured them in, then we can go for the kill! 
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #31 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 10:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 4:17am, amichail wrote:
Yup... automated deductive reasoning. A nice example of the effective use of computers as a tool helpful to mathematicians. Just like pencil & paper.
Amichael, I think you are using the wrong examples to prove something that is obvious to all of us. Of course it is only creativism that counts. Nothing new here, this is known for centuries. What scientific breakthroughs relied solely on deductive reasoning? Newton's laws, Maxwell's electromagnetism, Einstein's general relativity, Dirac's relativistic wave equation, Feynman's path integral interpretation of quantum mechanics: all perfect examples of mindblowingly beautiful inductive reasoning. True creativity at work.
Sorry my friend, but computers are (and will remain) in an slightly different league. (Seems to me the biggest understatement I made in years... )
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #32 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 1:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 10:19am, JocK wrote:
Yup... automated deductive reasoning. A nice example of the effective use of computers as a tool helpful to mathematicians. Just like pencil & paper.
Amichael, I think you are using the wrong examples to prove something that is obvious to all of us. Of course it is only creativism that counts. Nothing new here, this is known for centuries. What scientific breakthroughs relied solely on deductive reasoning? Newton's laws, Maxwell's electromagnetism, Einstein's general relativity, Dirac's relativistic wave equation, Feynman's path integral interpretation of quantum mechanics: all perfect examples of mindblowingly beautiful inductive reasoning. True creativity at work.
Sorry my friend, but computers are (and will remain) in an slightly different league. (Seems to me the biggest understatement I made in years... )
|
|
I don't think there is anything obvious about this discussion.
First, it's not obvious how a mathematician thinks. How does creative and analytic thought mix? Mathematics is not forgiving, yet somehow mathematicians have a "feeling" for what is true and worth pursuing, the general direction that a proof could take, etc. There is nothing obvous in this.
Second, what happens to the mathematician's thought patterns in the presence of a very powerful theorem prover? Would they change much? If they can become more creative, does this mean someone with weaker analytic ability but strong creativity could do interesting mathematics?
Third, an analogy with chess might be helpful. Is chess really so interesting now given that computers can pretty well beat any human player? Or is the game more interesting when the computer is used as a tool to help people play more effectively? How would the human's thought patterns change when playing chess using a powerful computer helper?
Fourth, given these very powerful thought tools, should we teach people differently? Should we focus more on vague creative concepts?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:08pm by amichail » |
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #33 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 7:43am, Icarus wrote:Alright, I will assume that the proof is good. Not only computer scientists, but also formalists are estatic about this, for the method used by the computer to prove is formalism. But:
1) The proof the program produced was not a human proof. It took several days effort by a human to convert it into something understandable.
|
|
Why does it have to be understandable? Isn't it sufficient that the program that produced it is proven correct so that we know that the theorem is true?
The following might be of interest:
http://ideas.web.cse.unsw.edu.au/index.php?module=articles&func=disp lay&ptid=1&catid=13&aid=151
BTW, why is it that people think theorems are true for interesting reasons? What if the reasons are not so interesting? Would we still be interested in understanding the proof? What if no insightful proof exists?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:11pm by amichail » |
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #34 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 2:05pm, amichail wrote:| Why does it have to be understandable? Isn't it sufficient that the program that produced it is proven correct so that we know that the theorem is true? |
|
This is one of my biggest problems with the classic form of the Turing Test - while a computer that can convince me that it's human will certainly convince me that it's intelligent, it seems very arrogant to assume that intelligent beings must think exactly the same way humans do...
And even some human mathematicians write their proofs in ways that require translation to be understandable by modern mathematicians - if you look at "textbook" proofs from a couple of centuries ago, it's not unusual for them to be almost incomprehensible.
Just because something isn't phrased the same way as I would phrase it doesn't mean that it's not of the same order of value as anything I could produce.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #35 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 8:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 2:05pm, amichail wrote:| Why does it have to be understandable? Isn't it sufficient that the program that produced it is proven correct so that we know that the theorem is true? |
|
First, my point was that the computer is still not accomplishing the same thing as the human mathematician. I myself can program a computer to make all sorts of pictures based solely on its own "volition". I could probably program it to produce pictures more appealing than some so-called "modern art". But I cannot program it to make pictures that anyone would care to see, much less own. In the same way, what the computer is producing is far different than what the mathematician does.
Second, whether the computer proof is enough depends on what you want. Most people believe mathematics is nothing more than memorizing formulas by rote, and applying them mechanically. This is essentially what the program does. It has a set of rote strategies, and applies them mechanically until it finds a proof. But those formulas that students learn and use by rote speak volumes to the mathematician about the nature of the theory they are part of. The student uses them, but the mathematician understands them.
There are so many similes that come to my mind for this that it is hard to choose one. But this one is closest to my own soul: Regularly I hear the argument that we should abandon manned space flights as too expensive and dangerous. We are told that every thing we could learn from manned exploration we can also learn from unmanned probes, but for much less money. I hold that this is a terribly short-sighted argument. What is the purpose of all this information about other places if we never intend to go there. Some may be satisfied with pictures and data. As for me, I want to walk on Mars.
So also others may be satisfied simply to know that every Robbins Algebra is Boolean. As for me, I want to know why.
Quote:| The following might be of interest: |
|
Not really (but thanks for the link, and the discussion). There is nothing there that is new to me. It (almost) totally misses my point. I do not hold that a computer-assisted proof like the 4-color theorem or computer-generated proof like the Robbins Algebra theorem are any less valid than a normal proof. I have said as much about the 4-color theorem before. I merely suggest that they are less useful, less informative. They are the pictures and data sent back by probes. Interesting, useful to build upon, but in the end, not what I desire.
Quote:| BTW, why is it that people think theorems are true for interesting reasons? What if the reasons are not so interesting? Would we still be interested in understanding the proof? What if no insightful proof exists? |
|
Then what is the point of studying it? A good proof cannot help but offer insight. The Robbins proof had the insight - it was just difficult to see in the original form. It took several days of distilling by a human to bring the insight to the fore. The 4-color theorem took a great deal of insight to get to the point where the computer could help out at all. And even then, "because each case worked" offers its own insights into the nature of the problem.
We are interested in these insights because they tell us what to look at next. Another simile: In my group at work, everyone knows how to use computers to do our jobs. But some, such as myself, know how computers work, and how to make them work for us. Those who do not understand are limited in what they can do to the tools that have already been prepared for them. I, on the other hand, have developed a reputation for doing things no one else can, because I know how to program my computers to do it. (We use both PC and UNIX machines, and no one else in the group has near the UNIX skills that I have - though the IT guy who assists our group leaves me in his dust.)
If we decide not to bother with the insights behind the theorems, we become like the non-programming members of my workgroup. They are solid workers, who are good at their jobs, but they cannot move beyond their current limits without someone else to show them the way. I prefer to lead the way. But to do that, I need to understand what I am working with. To lead, I need the insights to be found in the proofs.
on Jan 29th, 2005, 2:31pm, rmsgrey wrote:| This is one of my biggest problems with the classic form of the Turing Test - while a computer that can convince me that it's human will certainly convince me that it's intelligent, it seems very arrogant to assume that intelligent beings must think exactly the same way humans do... |
|
rmsgrey - You misunderstand the Turing Test. It was offered as a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.
The whole point of the Turing test was that if a machine passed it, you could not deny its sentience without denying that of other people, and ultimately of yourself. Your comments suggest that it also stated that machines failing the test were not to be considered sentient. This is not the case. A machine failing the test may or may not be sentient. When the test fails, it is the test that failed, not the machine. There was no assumption that all intelligences must think like us.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #36 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 4:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 1:59pm, amichail wrote:
... what happens to the mathematician's thought patterns in the presence of a very powerful theorem prover? Would they change much? If they can become more creative, does this mean someone with weaker analytic ability but strong creativity could do interesting mathematics?
|
|
What happened to the mathematician's thought pattern following the invention of pen & paper?
-- Nothing at all, most mathematicians became more efficient though.
What happened to the mathematician's thought pattern following the invention of symbolic manipulation programs?
-- Nothing at all, many mathematician started working more efficiently though.
What will happen to the mathematician's thought patterns when very powerful theorem provers become available?
-- Nothing at all, but surely many mathematicians will start working more efficiently.
Again, it's all about inductive reasoning. Brainwaves based on insight, and (yes!) creativism. All the rest doesn't count and can (should!) be automated.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2005, 4:11am by JocK » |
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #37 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 6:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 8:50pm, Icarus wrote:rmsgrey - You misunderstand the Turing Test. It was offered as a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.
The whole point of the Turing test was that if a machine passed it, you could not deny its sentience without denying that of other people, and ultimately of yourself. Your comments suggest that it also stated that machines failing the test were not to be considered sentient. This is not the case. A machine failing the test may or may not be sentient. When the test fails, it is the test that failed, not the machine. There was no assumption that all intelligences must think like us. |
|
The original argument by Turing is one thing, but the way the average layman refers to the Turing Test is as a necessary condition for machine intelligence, rather than a sufficient one. My use of the word "classic" to describe this common meaning of the phrase may have been inappropriate, but I was seeking to clarify the distinction between the traditional Turing Test and the various variations that have been proposed that test for whether or not a machine can convince us of its intelligence rather than its humanity.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #38 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 7:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 7:45am, THUDandBLUNDER wrote:| And in what year do you think computers will become aware (of their own existence) in the sense that humans are? In other words, when will the Halting Problem be replaced in university textbooks by the Terminating Problem? (LOL) |
|
I have no idea when, and if, that will be. I just don't see a reason why it can't be. There is no magic, and if there is, no reason why it can't effect computers.
If god (if you're inclined to believe in him) wants to grant computers souls (if you're inclined to believe in them), that's his business.
Quote:| Do you believe that there is a gene for consciousness? |
|
Not one, at least. Certainly many genes that are prerequisite (in humans) for the devellopment of one. We need a brain to get a consciousness, and genes to get a brain. If that is all that there is to it, brain=mind, then so be it.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #39 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 7:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 9:49am, JocK wrote:| Your first statement is plainly wrong. The second I agree with. |
|
How so is it wrong? Are we composed of more than atoms?
Well, granted, we're atoms, and how they are 'connected'. (Just like a computer is not just its parts, but also how it's put together) But aside from it?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #40 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 8:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 29th, 2005, 8:50pm, Icarus wrote:| The whole point of the Turing test was that if a machine passed it, you could not deny its sentience without denying that of other people, and ultimately of yourself. |
|
I don't think I ever heard it put so well.
Of course, people being people, deny it anyway. Even though nothing non-human has even ever passed the turing test, they're already denying it solely on the grounds that "it's a computer".
Frankly it doesn't matter if we devellop a computer that is creative, left-brained, right-brained, prodigious, genius, original in all it's ideas and expressions. To many people, a priori, it's not human, so it's not intelligent. It misses the magic.
Never mind you could say the same thing about other people. How do we know they're not just automatons?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #41 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 10:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 7:48am, towr wrote:
How so is it wrong? Are we composed of more than atoms?
Well, granted, we're atoms, and how they are 'connected'. (Just like a computer is not just its parts, but also how it's put together) But aside from it?
|
|
Would you mind doing the following 'experiment' then? Lay down on the floor... put a plastic bag tightly over your head, and... wait a few minutes.*
All your atoms are still there. No connections were removed. Still the same you.
Or is it?
Despite all scientific advances, we should not pretend we even have the slightest understanding of what actually is this magical 'thing' that makes us different from 'just' bunches of switches. We have given it a name - consciousness - and we know some bunches of interconnected switches (e.g. humans) do have it, and other bunches of switches (e.g. computers) will never get it. Apart from that.... we lack any basic understanding on the subject.
* Please, don't be offended by this gedankenexperiment. And... don't try this at home: in contrast to that bunch of switches that you have powered on a few minutes ago, you might not be reboot-able!! 
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2005, 10:40am by JocK » |
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #42 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 11:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 10:36am, JocK wrote:| Would you mind doing the following 'experiment' then? Lay down on the floor... put a plastic bag tightly over your head, and... wait a few minutes.* |
|
And? If you pull the plug of the computer from its socket it also 'dies'. Admittedly you can restart that one more easily. But it's a case of losing power; no oxygen means no energy to function. And in the case of a body that causes damage that isn't reversible unless you act quickly.
Quote:All your atoms are still there. No connections were removed. Still the same you.
Or is it? |
|
Obviously not. All sorts of chemical reactions are halted. Homeostasis, part of the functional configuration, is broken. Cells start dying (definatly involving bonds between atoms being destroyed) etc
Quote:| Despite all scientific advances, we should not pretend we even have the slightest understanding of what actually is this magical 'thing' that makes us different from 'just' bunches of switches. |
|
So we should just pretend it is really magic? And not natural/physical?
Quote:| We have given it a name - consciousness - and we know some bunches of interconnected switches (e.g. humans) do have it, and other bunches of switches (e.g. computers) will never get it. |
|
How do you know that?
What more is it than a guess or a wish, a desire to be special?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #43 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 11:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 10:36am, JocK wrote:| Despite all scientific advances, we should not pretend we even have the slightest understanding of what actually is this magical 'thing' that makes us different from 'just' bunches of switches. We have given it a name - consciousness - and we know some bunches of interconnected switches (e.g. humans) do have it, and other bunches of switches (e.g. computers) will never get it. Apart from that.... we lack any basic understanding on the subject. |
|
Saying that a given bunch of switches can never become conscious requires a lot of understanding of what consciousness is and requires. If you don't know what is necessary for consciousness to develop, how can you ever be sure that the biro in my pocket could never become conscious, let alone a device that is capable of mimicking thought?
If you can say what quality it is that humans have that allows them to become conscious, and why lacking it prevents computers from becoming conscious, then you understand consciousness a lot better than most people will admit to.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #44 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 11:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 11:11am, rmsgrey wrote:
how can you ever be sure that the biro in my pocket could never become conscious <..> ? |
|
Yeah... let's start the Biro Liberation Front..!! We have deprived these conscious beings from their 'human' rights way too long..!
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #45 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 11:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 11:03am, towr wrote:
And? If you pull the plug of the computer from its socket it also 'dies'. Admittedly you can restart that one more easily. But it's a case of losing power; no oxygen means no energy to function. And in the case of a body that causes damage that isn't reversible unless you act quickly. |
|
OK, let's use another - perhaps more illuminating - gedankenexperiment.
Using a newly developed hi-res body scanner/synthesizer I am able to register for any device the positions of all atoms and each electron, and with that information I can construct an exact copy of the device.
Now, I first scan your computer, and subsequently build an exact copy. I put the power on and it works. More amazingly, the memory content is the same, and all your files are there. Next, I destroy your original computer, and give you the copy I just created. If I don't tell you what happened, would you ever notice? I don't think so.
Now I scan another device.. YOU..! The result of the scanning and synthesizing is a second Towr. Exactly the same atoms, connected in the very same way. I then approach you and tell you... "sorry, have to switch you off...". Would you mind? Would your 'whole being' be represented in the copy-Towr?
on Jan 30th, 2005, 11:03am, towr wrote:| So we should just pretend it is really magic? And not natural/physical? |
|
Absolutely.
I agree there is a slight chance that in some distant future profound new insights in quantum physics might ever lead to a level of understanding of consciousness in terms of 'physical laws'. At this moment in time however, we have not even scratched the surface of the subject. And yes, as long as we don't have the faintest understanding of the 'trick', it is magic to all of us.
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #46 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 12:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 11:59am, JocK wrote:OK, let's use another - perhaps more illuminating - gedankenexperiment.
Using a newly developed hi-res body scanner/synthesizer I am able to register for any device the positions of all atoms and each electron, and with that information I can construct an exact copy of the device.
Now, I first scan your computer, and subsequently build an exact copy. I put the power on and it works. More amazingly, the memory content is the same, and all your files are there. Next, I destroy your original computer, and give you the copy I just created. If I don't tell you what happened, would you ever notice? I don't think so.
Now I scan another device.. YOU..! The result of the scanning and synthesizing is a second Towr. Exactly the same atoms, connected in the very same way. I then approach you and tell you... "sorry, have to switch you off...". Would you mind? Would your 'whole being' be represented in the copy-Towr? |
|
But if you copy Towr perfectly, and then destroy the original, I wouldn't ever notice that if you didn't tell me. If you duplicated yourself perfectly, and then destroyed the original, but didn't tell Towr, would Towr ever notice? Would he care if you did tell him?
What your thought experiment establishes so clearly is that there is a difference between "me" and anything else. In the case where I am duplicated, there is a significant difference between me and my copy - one is me; the other is him. I object strenuously to terminating "me" (except under certain conditions) but have no more qualms about terminating "him" than about terminating "JocK".
If you were to render me unconscious, duplicate me perfectly, destroy the original, and then wake me up, I might be a little upset about the rendering unconscious part, but wouldn't much care about the duplication and destruction...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #47 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 12:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 12:35pm, rmsgrey wrote:
But if you copy Towr perfectly, and then destroy the original, I wouldn't ever notice that if you didn't tell me. |
|
Are you sure? Would the copy of Towr have Towr's consciousness?
Suppose I scan Towr, put all information on a memory stick, and destroy Towr before constructing the copy. Where is Towr's consciousness. In my memory stick?
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #48 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 12:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 11:59am, JocK wrote:| Now I scan another device.. YOU..! The result of the scanning and synthesizing is a second Towr. Exactly the same atoms, connected in the very same way. I then approach you and tell you... "sorry, have to switch you off...". Would you mind? Would your 'whole being' be represented in the copy-Towr? |
|
Yes, but also in 'me'-me. And 'me'-me doesn't want to die anymore than 'copy'-me.
Of course if you just killed 'me'-me, 'copy'-me wouldn't know any better, no more than I could tell the difference between my original computer and an exact copy.
But then, I wouldn't want to lose many things I don't have and only believe I have either. The 'me'-ness can be entirely ficticious, and I'd still mind losing it. Really, what should I care if I'm dead, certainly I won't mind anymore then. Either I'm not, or somewhere better (hopefully).
Quote:| I agree there is a slight chance that in some distant future profound new insights in quantum physics might ever lead to a level of understanding of consciousness in terms of 'physical laws'. At this moment in time however, we have not even scratched the surface of the subject. And yes, as long as we don't have the faintest understanding of the 'trick', it is magic to all of us. |
|
It seems like magic. Just as anything people don't understand. TV is 'magic' in that way to some. But it's still just physics, unknown perhaps, or misunderstood, but still, just physics. Following set rules of nature.
I'm pretty sure most computer programs are magic to a lot of people. So what's the problem anyway? As long as it's too complex to understand it can be sentient, right? So just a matter of reaching the right amount of complexity.
And even aside from that. Since when did we ever need to understand something to make it? We've been making babies since before we could conceive the concept of conception. And fire before we knew what oxidation was. Bread before we knew yeast. etc Artificial evolution may well lead to things we can never design intentionally. Artificial life not being the least of them.
Magic!
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #49 on: Jan 30th, 2005, 12:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 30th, 2005, 12:50pm, JocK wrote:| Are you sure? Would the copy of Towr have Towr's consciousness? |
|
Yes
Quote:| Suppose I scan Towr, put all information on a memory stick, and destroy Towr before constructing the copy. Where is Towr's consciousness. In my memory stick? |
|
Frankly, given the chance I might do it myself, just as a backup you know. And in the event of my death have my loyal minions create a new android body and upload me back to life.
As every CS minded person knows, you should make frequent backups of everything important
[e]To be more precise, you'd have a physical representation of my consiousness at a point in time. Consciousness, like most mental 'states' are processes, so my representation of consciousness on the memorystick isn't conscious.[/e]
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2005, 1:03pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print