Re: Transactions: good or bad?

Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bci44j$j85o4$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de>...

> > A computer can emulate the behavior of a small neuron network without
> > any problem.
> >
>
> This is unsupported speculation, not science. Your "philosophers" should
> teach you better than this.

It is pure science.

> > We know pretty well how a neuron work.
> >
>
> Obviously your claims are just hot air, since we're very far from "real"
> or "unreal" AI.

You try to distort everything. Understanding the mechanism of a single neuron is not the same as understanding how billions of neurons work together. It is like saying you know all about how a Pentium 4 works because you know how a transistor works.

> We don't really know how neurons work.

It seems you are not very well informed.

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~bruceb/psyc123/neuron.html

> > Perhaps, but what is sure is that there is not any scientific theory
> > that might give us a hint that we can not construct intelligent
> > computers.
> >
>
> Modern mathematics gives us plenty.

Mathematics is not science, they don't use the scientifical method.

> What he was refering to in the context is that philosophy is not a
> science and philosophical arguments have nothing to do (therefore no
> intellectual standing) within a science, and especially within
> Mathematics.

Philosophy of science discuss what science is. Saying that Popper is not an intellectual is complete nonsense.

If you had a minimal grasp in philosophy of science you would know that maths are not science.

> > "que le lenguage informatique es déterministe - il s'exécute dans un
> > ordre précis"
> >
> > It is a complete nonsense.
> >
>
> Why don't you write him a nice letter.

I am not very interested in discussing about computer science with someone who says nonsenses like such.

> Girard is one of the greates mathematicians of our time

And Chomsky is one of the greatest linguistics of our time, but few people consider him seriously when he writes about politics and economy.

Copeland rebuts lots of fallacies similar to Girard's ones.

> What I suspect is that you don't have the necessary mathematical
> background to understand what he writes, otherwise you'd come up with a
> real argument.

The charge of the proof is not on my side, and Girard does not offer anything with substance.

> Trashing doesn't come close to an argument, and while Girard is
> justified at anytime to dismiss Alfredo Novoa's opinionated nonsense as
> trash , the reverse does not hold.

He does not ofer any justification to his absurd assertion.

Connect a sound card to a computer and you can have non deterministic results.

> I can understand your lack of knowledge in Math, but this non-sense you
> just wrote is unexcusable, especially after trashing Girard.
>
> Read my leaps: chess has a finite model, chess *is* finite. If you're
> not able to see the obvious, you come borderline to trolling.

It is finite only because the number of turns is limited. The number of turns is the halt condition, if not we could fall in infinite loops.

Saying that what I said is unexcusable is unexcusable :-)

> You obviously have not done enough Math to know this is trivially false.
> A human will extend the model he's working with if needed, a computer is
> not.

If you extend the search space on the fly the search is still a search.

> > Then you are talking only about very hard to solve theorems. You were
> > not specific.
> >
>
> The discussions started with the claim that you can construct an AI
> system that will prove your programs, or at least that will be able to
> generate an exhaustive set of test for your programs.

No, the discussion started with the claim that computers can not make proofs, and it is trivially false.

> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >
> > It is a problem for humans too, but we can stablish heuristic halt
> > conditions.
> >
>
> No, it is not a problem for humans bevause we have not established that
> humans can be modelled by Turing Machines.

The reference does not agree with you, the problem is not restricted to Turing Machines.

> > Kasparov said that Deep Blue made several creative movements, and
> > computers have proven theorems which mathematicians thougth they were
> > reserved for creative theorem provers.
> >
>
> Very "creative" indeed. Creative by means of an exhaustive partial search.

Creative is not a very formal term.

> > It was not proved that we can not construct creative computers, but
> > creativity is not always the only way. Automated theorem proving
> > progres a lot faster than strong artificial intelligence.
> >
>
> Oh, strong AI has been largely discredited as a scientific hoax by now.

And such discredit was also discredited. You should read Copeland or shut up.

> Humans can decide which theorems are important and which are not,

It is orthogonal to theorem proving.

> You don't "prove" emipirical theories. We were talking about formal
> theories here. Popper told you the difference ?

Computers can not prove theorems is not a formal theory.

> > Do you think the human mind is supernatural? :-)
>
> You haven't explained what's your definition of super-natural

A supernatural thing does not follow the natural laws.

>, but for

Then prove that we can not emulate the behavior of a "natural thing" using computers, taking into account that computers are not restricted to the Von Newman architecture and Turing Machines equivalents. The charge of the proof is on your side.

> > But this could change (or not). If you don't know what intelligence is
> > then you can not prove we can not construct an intelligent machine
> > ever.
> >
>
> Within the current definition of computing machines (Turing equivalent
> that is), it's been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Where?

By the way see this:

"Computer scientists and logicians have shown that if conventional digital computers are considered in isolation from random external inputs (such as a bit stream generated by radioactive decay), then given enough time and tape, Turing machines can compute any function that any conventional digital computer can compute. (We won't consider whether Turing machines and modern digital computers remain equivalent when both are given external inputs, since that would require us to change the definition of a Turing machine.)"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/

Computers may have random external inputs. This invalidates Girard's claims.

The noise generated by a cheap sound card could be a good random external input :-)

> > Which ones?
> >
>
> Search in finite models with proof.

If we find a proof in a search in a finite model it does not invalidate the proof.

> No. You need to be able to understand what theorems are significant and
> what theorems are not interesting.

And it is orthogonal to the discussion. The discussion is about the proof of given conjectures.

> In so doing humans enhance their ability to construct Mathematics over
> an infinite domain of all the junk that may otherwise come out by
> mechanizing axioms and inference rules.

Humans can not search in an infinite domain. The number of symbols you can handle in your life is finite.

> > By the way mathematics are not science.
> >
>
> The BS statement of the month.

It is trivially true.

Alfredo Received on Tue Jun 17 2003 - 18:57:08 CEST