
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  diyAudio Store  Gallery  Wiki  Blogs  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion. 

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
18th December 2012, 11:50 PM  #21 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2007

Yes, Penrose was to some extent just 'thinking out loud' in that book, but I think he is right that genuine creative thinking involves more than just running an algorithm. What that 'more' consists of is still not known, yet we can all do it.

18th December 2012, 11:56 PM  #22 
diyAudio Moderator

I remember once reading a magazine article about a fellow who had built a computer to play tictacktoe (naughts & crosses). He claimed that computers would never be able to play chess, it was just too complex.

19th December 2012, 12:06 AM  #23 
diyAudio Member

playing these kinds of games requires no insight per se, there are rules and algorithms can be written. It's not a question of claiming that computers aren't going to be powerful enough or that the limitation is because we are complex (well, some people like to think they're complex!). What Sir Roger said was that no matter how powerful a digital computer / Turing machine becomes, it can not in principle, ever replicate 100% the human mind because at the end of the day all it can do is run algorithms  insanely fast maybe, but that won't cut the mustard.
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig. 
19th December 2012, 12:48 AM  #25  
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2010

Quote:


19th December 2012, 01:18 AM  #26 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Antonio

self consciousness
__________________
It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry.  Thomas Paine 
19th December 2012, 02:17 AM  #27 
diyAudio Moderator

Is that the same as selfawareness?
If a computer or robot could be taught to recognize itself in a mirror, would it be selfaware? That should not be too hard a task for good A.I. If not, why not? 
19th December 2012, 02:34 AM  #28  
diyAudio Member

Quote:
Anyhow, the 'argument' as I understand it goes like this If the brain were a computer, its powers are limited to what can be computed. Turing was a clever guy that looked in detail at the basic operations of computers in general. He looked at the fundamental abilities of computers, he did not make assumptions about the power, speed or other performance attributes of computers, or how they are made and powered but rather the fundamental capabilities of a generic computer. Therefore, his results apply to any classical computer, whether in the past, the present or distant future. Turing showed that every possible computation can be precisely specified by a recipe consisting of a sequence of simple steps. This is analogous to the man in the Chinese room who is following instructions in a book. This sequence of steps is called an algorithm; all computer programmes are algorithms. Anything that can be accomplished with an algorithm can in principle be accomplished eventually by a computer. Anything that can not be accomplished by an algorithm can not in principle ever be accomplished by a computer, no matter how powerful it is. There was another clever chap called Gödel who like most famous mathematicians had his own theory; it is called Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. I don't understand his theorem much. His theorem showed that no algorithm for proving mathematical truths can prove them all. This means that there are mathematical truths that are known to us, but can not be proven by a computer. We have arrived at these mathematical truths through human insight. Penrose reasons that since there are mathematical truths that we have discovered, which we can prove are not discoverable by an algorithm, then there are mathematical truths we can discover that computers can not, regardless of how powerful they are. In other words, there are things we can do which computers can not do and this is 'proven'. And so a computer can not completely reproduce the capabilities of the human mind. Penrose further offered a way out of this… that quantum physical processes may be able to go beyond what can be accomplished by a classical computer, can go beyond algorithmic computing. And his book explores this a little further but obviously without any proof since science does not know how the brain works in detail as yet. I suspect it's quite easy to program a robot to recognize itself  as in, be able to set a flag in memory to indicate that an image it captures matches a stored reference.
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig. Last edited by Bigun; 19th December 2012 at 02:43 AM. 

19th December 2012, 02:42 AM  #29 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france

Undoubtly..
The principle of life is inherently an electromagnetic force induced phenomenon, hence only its complexity differentiate it from more common electromagnetic processes that statisticaly have orders of magnitude higher occurrence as single difference , the occurrence being inversely proportionnal (not linearly, of course) to complexity. 
19th December 2012, 09:14 AM  #30  
diyAudio Member

Quote:
So is this a reflection of my mind or a reflection of my image? How do I know the reflection is not really "me"..ie it is a reflection not me looking at me? Or a person who looks like me looking at me? I would know that an exact copy is not me..it is something else.. A mannequin is not a human..etc When you look in a mirror is the image what you expect to see?<<yes sounds nuts however we are in constant change..a guy once said to me when he looks in the mirror he thinks (who is that old man looking at me) in his mind he has a personal image and its not old.. Regards M. Gregg Last edited by M Gregg; 19th December 2012 at 09:21 AM. 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
An Ethical Thought Experiment with respect to Dissociative Identity  thadman  The Lounge  18  14th October 2009 10:47 PM 
BIB thought experiment  Brisso57  Full Range  3  27th January 2009 04:13 PM 
Thought experiment ... chipamped active line arrays?  Brisso57  MultiWay  2  28th June 2008 10:55 AM 
basic room accoustics..help design my ht room :)  JinMTVT  MultiWay  4  4th September 2007 12:35 PM 
Thought experiment: A thousand 12V car batteries in series  bigwill  Everything Else  6  21st June 2007 04:56 AM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 