X-Message-Number: 9337
Subject: More replies to a Markov Chain
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:40:38 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <>

> From: Thomas Donaldson <>
> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:50:09 -0800 (PST)
> 
> To Mr. Metzger:
> 
> As I said in my most recent posting, do not pride yourself upon your knowledg
e
> of computing, since you clearly do not know what recursion is as formally
> defined.

Mr. Donaldson, you presented a definition for an iterative rather than 
a recursive algorithm, and *I* don't know how it is defined?

Remember, btw, this is the term "recursive" as used by a computer
scientist -- not by a lawyer, a basketball player, or a chef. Its a
term of art.

> This issue makes me suspect your own expertise. I would hardly mind
> that (I've already said that I never took any formal course in computer
> science) were it not that you seem to want to beat me over the head with
> your supposed expertise. 

No, I don't want to "beat you over the head with it". I just would
like you to use terminology correctly if you are going to draw
conclusions based on terminology. If you are going to spew blather to
the effect that Turing Machines directly execute recursive algorithms
(they do not -- they have no such constructs) you should first know
what a recursive algorithm is. In computer science, a recursive
algorithm is one that involves a function/procedure which invokes
itself.

You claimed, by the way, to be able to execute recursive algorithms on
an ordinary computer without the use of a stack and without converting
the algorithms to equivalent iterative algorithms. I challenged you to
demonstrate this, but you've yet to give us an example. "We're still
waiting!"

Of course, given that your modus operandi is "ignore anything that
disproves my point and hope that people don't notice", I'll assume
that you will never so much as concede the point, let alone provide us 
with an example.

> Furthermore, let us suppose that we accept the worth of Turing machines as
> statements of the ultimate possible.

Or, at least, as AN upper bound on the possible, though not
necessarily THE upper bound on the possible. There are probably
(somewhat) tighter bounds on the possible, but Turing Machines are the 
most easily mathematically tractible ones.

> You state yourself that use of such ideas, just as does use of
> Carnot machines, allows us to show that some kind of computing are
> impossible. That's fine, but we discussing not whether simulation of
> a human being by computer was impossible but whether it was
> POSSIBLE.

Ah, not quite.

1) You brought up Turing Machines, not me.
2) You claimed that neurons could perform non-Turing equivalent
   computations, and thus that simulation of a human by a computer was 
   impossible.

I did not make any claims about Turing Machines and brains. I don't
consider them to be particularly relevant. The whole Turing Machine
thread is your game, not mine. I just responded to it.

By the way, Mr. Donaldson, we are still anxiously awaiting the example 
of a computation that may be performed by a neuron but not by a Turing 
Machine. We've been waiting for it for over a week now.

> Clearly that isn't what you aim to do, so please cease bringing in
> irrelevant arguments about Turing machines.

I never brought in those arguments in the first place. You did. Anyone 
can see for themselves by looking in the archive.

> No matter where you got your education, I would assume that you did just
> a few courses in mathematics.

That would be an inaccurate assumption, but most of your assumptions
are inaccurate, so this should not be a surprise.

I find the ad hominems rather amusing, especially in light of your
manifest ignorance of most of the topics you are discussing.

> No where in your postings have you come anywhere near to answering
> my statements about chaos.

No, Mr. Donaldson, I've continuously answered them, with my
description of the doctrine of statistical functional
equivalence. You've never once shown that you've so much as read that
explanation.

This is not very surprising, however, as you aren't a person, but are
in fact a Markov Chain.

> Why is it so important to you that we will someday be able to simulate
> you in a computer? You seem to fall into vituperation every time someone
> questions that idea.

I haven't been vituperative. I've ridiculed your ideas. They deserved
it.

I mean, you are the person who claimed that perception was continuous,
for example, and still (up to this very message!) you've never
answered my request for an explanation of this conclusion in the light
of the fact that neurons produce pulse trains, not continuous
signals. (I also cited other evidence such as the so-called Phi
phenomenon which points to a neural system with discontinuous sampling
of the world and built in adjustments for said quantized perception,
but you seem content to put out very strong statements without
evidence.)

You are the person who has claimed that neurons are capable of
non-Turing equivalent computation. (We are waiting for the example of
that!)

You are the person who's done stuff like ignore my entire argument
about statistical equivalence so that you could continue chanting
"chaos theory! chaos theory!" over and over again.

You're the one who keeps saying "you obviously only took a basic
course in differential equations" and "you obviously must have taken
very few math courses" and such -- never mind that we're discussing
computer science and you can't distinguish iteration from recursion,
which a first year CS student in his first class learns how to do.

Overall, one might ask "Why, Mr. Donaldson, is it so important to you
that you NOT be simulatable by a computer? Does it make you feel bad
to think that a computer could operate as your substrate as well as
squishy flesh? Are you like one of the Victorians who was offended to
think that man might have evolved from lower forms of life?"

> I would think that if you were truly sure of yourself here that you would
> be far more patient.

Mr. Donaldson, as just one example, I've given my Statistical
Functional Equvalence argument in no less than eight messages
now. You've never read it, or if you have read it, you've repeatedly
ignored it so that you could chant "chaos! chaos!" over and over
again. I challenged you in at least one message to demonstrate that
you weren't a Markov chain but actually a sentient creature by at the
very least replying directly to the text of my message with an
acknowledgement that you'd read the paragraph in question. You have
not, so far as I can tell, done so.

> Finally, some side issues. You seem to attribute various beliefs and 
> attitudes to me that I do not have. Among others, diamond may be stronger
> than bone, but it is also more brittle

Diamondoid is not more brittle than bone. Its a strictly better material.

> and requires more energy to produce.

You need a lot less diamond fiber than you think. It would also be of
extraordinary value in several fairly small high stress portions of
the human anatomy.

There is, of course, a far simpler explanation for why people don't
produce diamond fiber for such applications than "it takes too much
energy", of course. The simple explanation is "nature isn't perfect,
and some chemical pathways aren't really open to evolutionarily
evolved systems given that the only available catalysts are proteins
and peptide chains."

> Perhaps we may devise better materials than bone in the future,
> but diamond seems too simplistic.

Not DIAMOND. Diamondoid fibers.

> That is a good reason why we now use bone. Wheels, too, work best on
> flat surfaces, whether man-made or not. Legs have lots of advantages
> when surfaces are NOT flat. And that is why we have legs.

Why do fish have fins instead of the far more efficient propellers,
then?

Single celled animals of various kinds DO use propellers, of course. I 
think you don't quite get why it is that larger animals do not.

You seem to think nature is perfect. Nature is not perfect. Nature is
pretty damn good, but that doesn't mean that nature is capable of
evolving such things.


Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9337