Another thing is that life doesn’t come in absolutes, it comes in approximations.A Turing Machine doesn’t understand. The ones and zeroes/states are meaningless without a mind to understand them. It’s the problem of intentionality. Algorithms with meaning are programmed into it. Solutions with meaning are read out of it. But no meaning actually exists in the language itself apart from a mind that assigns it meaning.
I know that Turing machine is not conscious. My question is whether we are Truing machine when it comes to solving problem? I already asked: Do you know a problem which is solved non-algorithmically?A Turing Machine doesn’t understand. The ones and zeroes/states are meaningless without a mind to understand them. It’s the problem of intentionality. Algorithms with meaning are programmed into it. Solutions with meaning are read out of it. But no meaning actually exists in the language itself apart from a mind that assigns it meaning.
What Qualia has to with solving problem? When I asked whether we are Turing machine I meant whether we solve problems algorithmically?
Do you know any problem which is solved non-algorithmically?You can give yourself lots of examples, within all the many Big Questions.
You need to read more widely, beyond those who fancy themselves qualified to speak about “mind”, and respect your own mind more.
(Like most people you were probably taught to be ashamed of your mind.)
Algorithm: people who look behind themselves are paranoid. Agreed?
Aha but people with a certain kind of nerve damage need to look to know what’s going on around them. NLP-like doctrines (algorithms) teach that those people are paranoid but those doctrines fall down.
This feels like a John Henry vs the Machine type of question. Depending on the problem a computer (Turing machine) may probably work better. There’s a bit of a movement right now of maximizing use of AI to reduce the need for humans for certain tasks and problems. Though there may still be people involved at some higher level member of the process. But a significant number of people may have been eliminated.I know that Turing machine is not conscious. My question is whether we are Truing machine when it comes to solving problem? I already asked: Do you know a problem which is solved non-algorithmically?
If you’re reading up on Turing machines, you’ll find the notion of the “halting problem”. In other words, I could ask you the question “can you come up with an algorithm that could take another algorithm as (name removed by moderator)ut and determine whether that algorithm will eventually find a solution and halt on all (name removed by moderator)uts given to it?”.Do you know any problem which is solved non-algorithmically?
Thanks for the complement.This feels like a John Henry vs the Machine type of question. Depending on the problem a computer (Turing machine) may probably work better. There’s a bit of a movement right now of maximizing use of AI to reduce the need for humans for certain tasks and problems. Though there may still be people involved at some higher level member of the process. But a significant number of people may have been eliminated.
Thanks for your response. Could we solve undecidable problems? Our brains mainly process information in parallel. Could that be the source of difference between us and Turing machine? Please read the following article.If you’re reading up on Turing machines, you’ll find the notion of the “halting problem”. In other words, I could ask you the question “can you come up with an algorithm that could take another algorithm as (name removed by moderator)ut and determine whether that algorithm will eventually find a solution and halt on all (name removed by moderator)uts given to it?”.
Turing proved that this problem cannot be solved algorithmically: there is no program which can make this determination for all algorithms and all (name removed by moderator)uts. This isn’t the only undecidable problem out there, though; there are many others.
I don’t know if this helps, though: it’s not that the halting problem is “solved non-algorithmically”, it’s that it’s “non-solvable algorithmically.” There’s an important difference there, of course.
The issue with the “halting problem” is that you can’t predict, over all sets of (name removed by moderator)uts, whether the program will halt… until you actually run all sets of (name removed by moderator)uts. So, you ‘solve’ it by actually doing it.Could we solve undecidable problems?
I don’t think so. After all, our brains seem to be more like groups of processing cores operating in parallel. If we set up a bunch of Turing machines, working in parallel (and coordinated in some fashion), wouldn’t we have the same effect?Our brains mainly process information in parallel. Could that be the source of difference between us and Turing machine?
Hmm… that guy comes off as pretty angry with the world. Hard to collaborate when you take an attitude like that…Please read the following article.
Why should we have done that if the theory is proven.The issue with the “halting problem” is that you can’t predict, over all sets of (name removed by moderator)uts, whether the program will halt… until you actually run all sets of (name removed by moderator)uts. So, you ‘solve’ it by actually doing it.
Yes. Something like that.I don’t think so. After all, our brains seem to be more like groups of processing cores operating in parallel. If we set up a bunch of Turing machines, working in parallel (and coordinated in some fashion), wouldn’t we have the same effect?
You can google it yourself.Hmm… that guy comes off as pretty angry with the world. Hard to collaborate when you take an attitude like that…
Exactly. Since we can’t do anything but run the algorithms themselves, there’s no point in attempting to instantiate a “halting algorithm”.Why should we have done that if the theory is proven.
Google what? That the guy hates academia and computer scientists? He claimed it right on the blog you cited.You can google it yourself.
Hmmm, that guy says he is “a self-taught computer programmer” and it shows. He doesn’t seem to understand much.Our brains mainly process information in parallel. Could that be the source of difference between us and Turing machine? Please read the following article.
Alan Turing was an amazing guy. He did both things – and many more! – in his career. The “Turing test” is distinct from the notion of a “Turing machine,” though.Turing wrote a paper about whether we could distinguish between a human and an intellgent machine - google “Turing test”.
Yes, amazing guy. He described what became known as the universal Turing machine way back in 1936 - cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdfAlan Turing was an amazing guy. He did both things – and many more! – in his career. The “Turing test” is distinct from the notion of a “Turing machine,” though.
You can find other articles by googling non-algorithmic computation.Google what? That the guy hates academia and computer scientists? He claimed it right on the blog you cited.