X-Message-Number: 14944 From: "Pat Clancy" <> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:42:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Simulating People and Animals Lee Corbin wrote: > >There's really no reason to think that the functioning > >of the mind is an _algorithm_, which is what is required > >to make it implementable as a computer program. > > According to the technical definition of "algorithm", algorithms > halt! An algorithm is just a list of instructions that guides the action of the machine, it may halt or not halt. I can write a one-line program that never halts; if you prefer not to call this an algorithm that is really just semantics. My point is that the mind is not an algorithm, either of the halting or non- halting variety. > > An operating system is a good example of a program that > technically isn't an algorithm (by this definition). An > OS offers you a response for each possible input you provide > it, but it's capable of much more. It has a long memory, > so to speak. I'm sure that you can easily imagine an interactive > robot which obeys commands and perhaps even gives some uppity > back talk from time to time, just the way that operating systems > seem to. Yet it still seems to you that in the course of millions > of years of development, computer programs can never imitate humans > > in any way whatsoever? An operating system is a program; if you prefer that term to "algorithm" that's fine, I see no difference in the main argument. There are light-years of difference between an "uppity" robot that has a mind, and an operating system that gives you cryptic but entirely pre-determined error messages. And yes a time frame of millions of years would make no difference IMHO - I think that Turing machines will be abandoned as a basis for AI long before then, hopefully something more appropriate will take their place. > > Please imagine a life-like robot that responds to all of the > world's stimuli unpredictably. (Unpredictable, of course, unless > you run a simulation of the same program.) The burden is still > upon you to say why a tremendous amount of emergent behavior from > an extremely complex set of programs cannot mimic animals or humans. No actually the burden is on you to show why any set of programs _should_ be able to do this. So far no one has shown it. > You bring up Dreyfus' old book; believe me, many of us on the other > side, e.g. Dennett, Hofstadter, and many many others do not find > his arguments convincing. Since you bring up Dennett, I will digress - I thought the title of his book, "Consciousness Explained", was about the most pretentious and misleading I've ever seen - if there was anything that book _didn't_ do it was "explain" consciousness. I really thought I should get my money back for the book, the title was making false claims. It was one circular argument on top of another. BTW I do not mean to imply this reflects on your own argument at all. > And as for Penrose, as wonderful as his > books are (I am perpetually re-reading them), his views about > mysterious goings on of microtubules and what not, have been panned > by numerous people, e.g., Ralph Merkle. As Marvin Minsky said, to > paraphrase, "Roger Penrose is so intelligent that there are only two > things in the world that he does not in principle thoroughly > understand. One is quantum mechanics, and the other is consciousness. > So who can blame him for thinking that they must be somehow > intimately related?" I don't see how name-calling from members of the AI community sheds light on anything. In fact it's somewhat amusing to witness the level of hysteria and defensiveness engendered amonst the strong-AI proponents, who have been losing increasing amounts of credibility over the years, as their claims have turned into smoke. As for Penrose, I was not referring to his specific claims about microtubules etc., but rather his critique of AI on computers. As for his thoughts on consciousness, I think he's walking in the dark just like everyone else (although he is smarter than many others who take on this topic). > > Can you guess what would be the give-away difference? Again, after > millions of years of development of programs by humans and other > programs, what tell-tale clue could still be present? Must it > write a sonnet (to use one of Turing's examples)? Why in principle > can't a robot sing and dance? Even after just fifty years of > development, they're very good at some things. Why is there some > sort of vague barrier that forever prevents them from doing other > things? I think computers can do maybe the first 80% of the behaviour simulation task, and then as they try to conquer that last and hardest 20%, the difficulties grow _exponentially_ until they become, in effect, infinite (for a Turing machine). I think that when a correct substrate for an artificial mind is found, it will possibly be that last 20% which was impossible for a Turing machine that will be the _easiest_ for the new whatever-it-is. Pat Clancy Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14944