One of the internal states that is usually appealed to in these contexts is intention: we want to know why somebody performed a particular action
Yes. And chess software that can explain why a particular move was chosen is more interesting - teaches us more about chess - than a black box which just spits out the selected move.
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason. Whereas a more conventional look-x-moves-ahead algorithm can in principle reveal its reasoning ("I lose my queen if I don't make this move").
Chess is complex enough that human players aim for subsidiary goals (capturing pieces, controlling more of the board) rather than making every move as part of a plan to achieve checkmate.
When sunflowers follow the Sun across the sky are they wondering if they could/should have put on SPF cream that morning ... ???
Do sunflowers "follow the Sun across the sky" or are they PROGRAMMED to FOLLOW the sun across the sky? In what sense is this distinction meaningful?
Yes there is a difference. Sunflowers aren't computers.
Define: "computer"
An artifact designed to compute.
Ah ...
So there is no basis for describing the human brain as a "computer" in any respect then ... and comparisons between computers and living things at any level are moot ...
When sunflowers follow the Sun across the sky are they wondering if they could/should have put on SPF cream that morning ... ???
Do sunflowers "follow the Sun across the sky" or are they PROGRAMMED to FOLLOW the sun across the sky? In what sense is this distinction meaningful?
Yes there is a difference. Sunflowers aren't computers.
Define: "computer"
An artifact designed to compute.
Ah ...
So there is no basis for describing the human brain as a "computer" in any respect then ... and comparisons between computers and living things at any level are moot ...
Well the original "computers" were actual human beings...
Surely comparing computers to living things must be possible even if you end up by saying "the comparison reveals they are very different for such-and-such a reason". And "at any level" is even worse! Surely at a very basic level we could say:
* computers and living things both have a material component
* they both require an energy source
* they both have a high level of complexity
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason.
That's not really "the point about neural nets" although it's in general a fair comment on their behaviour. There are ways of getting somewhat sensible answers out of some neural net systems, but they're certainly less straightforward than parsing a logic tree.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
When sunflowers follow the Sun across the sky are they wondering if they could/should have put on SPF cream that morning ... ???
Do sunflowers "follow the Sun across the sky" or are they PROGRAMMED to FOLLOW the sun across the sky? In what sense is this distinction meaningful?
Yes there is a difference. Sunflowers aren't computers.
Define: "computer"
An artifact designed to compute.
Ah ...
So there is no basis for describing the human brain as a "computer" in any respect then ... and comparisons between computers and living things at any level are moot ...
Well the original "computers" were actual human beings...
Surely comparing computers to living things must be possible even if you end up by saying "the comparison reveals they are very different for such-and-such a reason". And "at any level" is even worse! Surely at a very basic level we could say:
* computers and living things both have a material component
* they both require an energy source
* they both have a high level of complexity
just for a start...
I agree with you ...
I was posting rhetorically in response to the definition given ...
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason.
That's not really "the point about neural nets" although it's in general a fair comment on their behaviour. There are ways of getting somewhat sensible answers out of some neural net systems, but they're certainly less straightforward than parsing a logic tree.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
Oh, but your brain DOES go through all the received signals so quickly as to seem virtually instantaneous ...
I wasn't intending on arguing actually. I just thought it very interesting that God could reason creation into being versus uttering magic words. And it made me consider in the context of what I was reading how the meaning and implications change.
God can reason without words? I certainly can't. Perhaps He's a geometer?
We do a lot of our reasoning without words, why would God not be able to?
I wasn't intending on arguing actually. I just thought it very interesting that God could reason creation into being versus uttering magic words. And it made me consider in the context of what I was reading how the meaning and implications change.
God can reason without words? I certainly can't. Perhaps He's a geometer?
We do a lot of our reasoning without words, why would God not be able to?
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason.
That's not really "the point about neural nets" although it's in general a fair comment on their behaviour. There are ways of getting somewhat sensible answers out of some neural net systems, but they're certainly less straightforward than parsing a logic tree.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
Oh, but your brain DOES go through all the received signals so quickly as to seem virtually instantaneous ...
But in a way that is almost certainly more like a neural network than it is like a logic tree.
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason.
That's not really "the point about neural nets" although it's in general a fair comment on their behaviour. There are ways of getting somewhat sensible answers out of some neural net systems, but they're certainly less straightforward than parsing a logic tree.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
Oh, but your brain DOES go through all the received signals so quickly as to seem virtually instantaneous ...
But in a way that is almost certainly more like a neural network than it is like a logic tree.
I wasn't intending on arguing actually. I just thought it very interesting that God could reason creation into being versus uttering magic words. And it made me consider in the context of what I was reading how the meaning and implications change.
God can reason without words? I certainly can't. Perhaps He's a geometer?
We do a lot of our reasoning without words, why would God not be able to?
Speaking about Chess (and computing) may I suggest watching The Queen's Gambit (13 episodes Netflix). It shows how a young woman learned to master the game and to imagine new moves as she is playing against the masters. A review by two current masters said the story is accurate and the moves are real.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
You're contrasting two different processes - pattern recognition and deductive logic.
Whether you say they are both forms of logic or both forms of reasoning, or whether only one of those processes qualifies, is down to how we use words.
I think you're right that pattern recognition is closer to how the human brain works when we're coming to an understanding of what the truth is. And maybe we then construct a chain of logical reasoning (using the other process) in order to convince others who doubt our pattern-recognising abilities....
So I'd argue that studying computers and computation does throw some light on the workings of the human mind.
And if you believe that God has a mind, why not on His workings also ?
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
You're contrasting two different processes - pattern recognition and deductive logic.
Whether you say they are both forms of logic or both forms of reasoning, or whether only one of those processes qualifies, is down to how we use words.
I think you're right that pattern recognition is closer to how the human brain works when we're coming to an understanding of what the truth is. And maybe we then construct a chain of logical reasoning (using the other process) in order to convince others who doubt our pattern-recognising abilities....
So I'd argue that studying computers and computation does throw some light on the workings of the human mind.
And if you believe that God has a mind, why not on His workings also ?
"Pattern" "recognition" is a central aspect of the nature of Reality Itself, set into play by/during the Initial Conditions of The Big Bang ...
It is the *Reason* hydrogen and oxygen readily combine with each other, but not with argon ...
Comments
Yes. And chess software that can explain why a particular move was chosen is more interesting - teaches us more about chess - than a black box which just spits out the selected move.
If I understand it right, the point about neural net software is that there isn't any intelligible reason. Whereas a more conventional look-x-moves-ahead algorithm can in principle reveal its reasoning ("I lose my queen if I don't make this move").
Chess is complex enough that human players aim for subsidiary goals (capturing pieces, controlling more of the board) rather than making every move as part of a plan to achieve checkmate.
Ah ...
So there is no basis for describing the human brain as a "computer" in any respect then ... and comparisons between computers and living things at any level are moot ...
Well the original "computers" were actual human beings...
Surely comparing computers to living things must be possible even if you end up by saying "the comparison reveals they are very different for such-and-such a reason". And "at any level" is even worse! Surely at a very basic level we could say:
* computers and living things both have a material component
* they both require an energy source
* they both have a high level of complexity
just for a start...
That's not really "the point about neural nets" although it's in general a fair comment on their behaviour. There are ways of getting somewhat sensible answers out of some neural net systems, but they're certainly less straightforward than parsing a logic tree.
But that's also rather the way that people work. If I see someone I know, I think "there's Johnny". I don't go through some kind of internal logic tree that says "Oh, look, a short black man. He's middle aged, has no hair, and wears glasses. His nose is quite large. He's in a Packers shirt. It must be Johnny."
I agree with you ...
I was posting rhetorically in response to the definition given ...
Oh, but your brain DOES go through all the received signals so quickly as to seem virtually instantaneous ...
God has to reason?!
"God" is a "computer" ... ???
But in a way that is almost certainly more like a neural network than it is like a logic tree.
Yes ...
Er... that's a corollary?
You're contrasting two different processes - pattern recognition and deductive logic.
Whether you say they are both forms of logic or both forms of reasoning, or whether only one of those processes qualifies, is down to how we use words.
I think you're right that pattern recognition is closer to how the human brain works when we're coming to an understanding of what the truth is. And maybe we then construct a chain of logical reasoning (using the other process) in order to convince others who doubt our pattern-recognising abilities....
So I'd argue that studying computers and computation does throw some light on the workings of the human mind.
And if you believe that God has a mind, why not on His workings also ?
"Pattern" "recognition" is a central aspect of the nature of Reality Itself, set into play by/during the Initial Conditions of The Big Bang ...
It is the *Reason* hydrogen and oxygen readily combine with each other, but not with argon ...