Intuition or brute force?

[Bagheera]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

probably the difference between human intuition and a computers brute force is that the human understands what it is doing and the computer does not know what it is doing.
The human can understand that it is probably impossible to beat said computer at chess but understanding that fact gives some opportunities to the human which are lacking in the computer. The human can attempt to crash the computer deliberately, destroying most of the game of chess and then attempt with, hopefully, improved odds to outrun the computer to the King. Or something like that, maybe.

…that was an intuitive response, by the way.

 

[Bagheera]

Paddy Walker:

probably the difference between human intuition and a computers brute force is that the human understands what it is doing and the computer does not know what it is doing.

First, the human “intuition” is the result of the sub-conscious “brute force”. Second, humans are “aware” only a small part of the brain activity, namely the part that happens in the “grey cell” area, the conscious. Most of our processing power is “hidden”, though its existence can be inferred by the experiments like the one I already described. One can think of the computer as having only “white cells”, in other words, the “sub-conscious”.
Paddy Walker:

…that was an intuitive response, by the way.

Which means that you are unaware of the thinking process which resulted in your post.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…

Which means that you are unaware of the thinking process which resulted in your post.

no. It means I understood your problem and solved it in an unexpectedly wonderful way…

 

[Geo17]

Interesting discussion. So far we have not been able to build a computer that can do what a human can, and I hope we never do. If we ever even get close, we better work first on morality programs. In one of the Star Trek series their doctor is a very sophisticated computer program. In a few episodes they show what can happen when someone disables the doctor’s morality circuits. We best take a lesson from that. Because you’re right, we are moving in the direction of trying to write programs that can do what a human can. So much of what today is real was all inspired by Star Trek, so let’s not forget what can happen if a program that’s almost human will do without it’s morality chips.

 

[Mumbles140]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

I disagree with the initial assumption. The computer did not ‘learn’ to play chess. Rather, people with an understanding of chess created advanced algorithms and cognitive abilities for the computer to instantly calculate all potential moves based on all potential strategies to maximize the probability of success. So yes, brute force, but brute force instituted by man, not the computer.

Addressing your point about intuition and brute force, I believe you have overlooked something. The machine can only act as a machine does, making choices based on data and logic to pick the moves that give the highest probability of success. But chess is not played in a vacuum, and the move of the human alters the move of the computer. I’m sure chess players do a lot of number crunching, whether consciously (mapping out strategies and the likely moves made following them) or sub-consciously (which we could attribute to experience, training etc). However, the human has free will, and this means they can break the patterns they know. With the ability to base decisions on emotion and intuition, they are superior to the computer, or at least can be. The human can make a low probability move because it knows how the computer will react based on the logic available - the unpredictability of the human lessens the effectiveness of the computer. When we make decisions that aren’t the most probable choice, that is intuition over brute force, and that is how man beats machine.

 

[Bagheera]

Geo17:

Interesting discussion. So far we have not been able to build a computer that can do what a human can, and I hope we never do.

I hope that we shall.

Geo17:

If we ever even get close, we better work first on morality programs.

Are you referring to the Laws of Robotics as proposed by Isaac Asimov? Especially the First Law: “A robot cannot harm a human being, or – through inaction – allow a human being to come to harm”. Any sensible developer would attempt to build in limitations into an artificial being; after all humans have a serious Frankenstein complex.

---

Mumbles140:

I disagree with the initial assumption. The computer did not ‘learn’ to play chess.

Have you ever heard of self-modifying and learning algorithms? Of course the initial algorithms are “given” to the computers. But the same applies to children. We teach them the facts, logic and methods, so they no not start as a “tabula rasa” either. The learning algorithms are able to evolve, and the “final” product is something that not even the original designers can understand and comprehend.

Mumbles140:

When we make decisions that aren’t the most probable choice, that is intuition over brute force, and that is how man beats machine.

Except with this “strategy” you would lose even faster. Not even the world champions can beat the computer programs any more. But this is not the point right now. The chess was only a convenient example, because the alleged intuition (the eureka moment) is “unmasked” and it turns to be a “hidden brute force” and this fact was discovered by monitoring the eye-movement of the players.

 

[Mumbles140]

Have you ever heard of self-modifying and learning algorithms? Of course the initial algorithms are “given” to the computers. But the same applies to children. We teach them the facts, logic and methods, so they no not start as a “tabula rasa” either. The learning algorithms are able to evolve, and the “final” product is something that not even the original designers can understand and comprehend.

Except with this “strategy” you would lose even faster. Not even the world champions can beat the computer programs any more. But this is not the point right now. The chess was only a convenient example, because the alleged intuition (the eureka moment) is “unmasked” and it turns to be a “hidden brute force” and this fact was discovered by monitoring the eye-movement of the players.

But isn’t this self-modifying and learning algorithm really a development of mechanical intuition rather than brute force?

 

[MPat]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

Sorry, but that is nonsense and ignores actual research on the topic.

First of all, researchers do not tend to be anonymous. If you are aware of a study you mention, give some bibliographical information (author, title of paper etc.). Otherwise it is likely that we are dealing with research that was misreported and misremembered. Nothing good can come from that.

Second, we actually have a rather good idea how chess players think. For example, Adrian de Groot (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_de_Groot) has written a thesis that has been translated to English as “Thought and choice in chess” (published in 1965). It is available via “Google Books”. There he finds four phases of decision-making (orientation, exploration, investigation, proof). And none of them is really “brute force”.

The calculation trees that are made are simply not “brute force” trees of moves. The guess is that they are trees of plans. You might note that there are some attempts to use planning and pattern-matching in chess programming (for example, Jacques Pitrat, “A Chess Combination Program Which Uses Plans”, “Artificial Intelligence”, 1978, 8(3), p. 275-321 or David Wilkins (1980). Using patterns and plans in chess. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 14, pp. 165-203). But that is not “brute force” and those programs are not used or written that often (you might note that the articles are not very recent)…

Third, the eye movements you mention are probably saccades (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade). They are used for, well, visual perception. There is no reason to think that they have anything to do with thinking as such. Not to mention “brute force”…

Fourth, your statement “Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”” doesn’t work well with your next statement “What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious.”… Let’s face it: “brute force” has been attributed to unconscious, because it obviously doesn’t fit anywhere else and it “had” to be somewhere. Wouldn’t that be “unconscious of the gaps”…? (I guess you will agree that “God of the gaps” is - at least in some sense - superior to this approach, as it is used to explain things that are known to exist…)

 

[mytruepower2]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

Computers are inferior in the following ways…

1. They lack the ability to create artistically.
2. They can’t process high-definition video and sound as quickly as the human mind can.
3. They can only cope with situations that they’ve been programmed to cope with.
4. They have no meta-understanding, by which I mean that they can’t ask questions about their existence. Even if a computer were programmed to ask such questions, it would never be able to ask those questions about that program.
5. Computers are not conscious entities. They aren’t aware of themselves, or their own egos.
6. Computers are not moral agents.
7. Computers are incapable of religious belief, or worship.

I’m sure there are other ways in which computers are inferior, but these are all the ones that spring immediately to mind.

 

[Bagheera]

What you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. But, since it amuses me, I will answer.

mytruepower2:

Computers are inferior in the following ways…

1. They lack the ability to create artistically.
2. They can’t process high-definition video and sound as quickly as the human mind can.
3. They can only cope with situations that they’ve been programmed to cope with.
4. They have no meta-understanding, by which I mean that they can’t ask questions about their existence. Even if a computer were programmed to ask such questions, it would never be able to ask those questions about that program.
5. Computers are not conscious entities. They aren’t aware of themselves, or their own egos.
6. Computers are not moral agents.
7. Computers are incapable of religious belief, or worship.

1. What is art? Some people consider a few unconnected urinals as art. Some people consider Wagner’s music a cacophony.
2. Process? In what meaning? A few years ago it seemed impossible that a computer program can beat the world champion of chess.
3. Not true. There are learning algorithms. There are diagnostic programs which can p(name removed by moderator)oint a problem faster and more accurately than humans can. And those programs constantly learn as they go along.
4. “Never”? That is a long time. Don’t give up your day gig to become a prophet.
5. For the time being, that is true. What of it? What use is self-awareness? Besides, what is self-awareness than using the word “I” and “you” in the proper context?
6. Indeed, and let’s keep them that way. A well designed “robotic” doctor would never refuse to treat a patient. It would never get tired, never get irritated, it would be infinitely patient and helpful. It cannot “choose” to be unkind, and that is a huge plus. What you call “morality” is a useless phenomenon.
7. That is a really HUGE plus! What use is superstition?

Of course, computers can be programmed to “emulate” all those behaviors. And there is no real difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the real McCoy. But let’s hope that they will always be an example of R. Daneel Olivaw, “who” is aware of the ways and means to hurt humans, but “who” is not free to do so, due to the “First Law of Robotics”.

 

[mytruepower2]

1. What is art? Some people consider a few unconnected urinals as art. Some people consider Wagner’s music a cacophony.

“Any craft or endeavor.” Computers are not capable of crafts or endeavors, which result in patterns that weren’t there before, or create ideas or concepts that didn’t exist.

1. Process? In what meaning? A few years ago it seemed impossible that a computer program can beat the world champion of chess.

When I say that they can’t do this, I mean that they can’t do it -now.- Obviously, in the future, computers may be advanced enough to overcome this limitation.

1. Not true. There are learning algorithms. There are diagnostic programs which can p(name removed by moderator)oint a problem faster and more accurately than humans can. And those programs constantly learn as they go along.

Sure, but all of those algorithms need to be programmed into the computer before it can use them to cope with any problem, and therefore, the algorithm needs to be designed to deal with a certain type and scope of problem. So the computer must be “prepped” to deal with problems of that sort, or it simply won’t.

1. “Never”? That is a long time. Don’t give up your day gig to become a prophet.

That’s not a counter-argument.

1. For the time being, that is true. What of it? What use is self-awareness? Besides, what is self-awareness than using the word “I” and “you” in the proper context?

The use of self-awareness is that it allows a person to identify themselves and perceive the world around them, and because of this, a being is superior who possesses it.

1. Indeed, and let’s keep them that way. A well designed “robotic” doctor would never refuse to treat a patient. It would never get tired, never get irritated, it would be infinitely patient and helpful. It cannot “choose” to be unkind, and that is a huge plus. What you call “morality” is a useless phenomenon.

See, that’s the problem. A computerized doctor would be incapable of the virtue of patience, because that would involve being a moral agent. Moral agents have only two properties that non moral agents lack.

1. They have moral obligations.
2. They have moral rights.

If the computer were in possession of these, it would clearly be superior than it was before, as opposed to a mere possession to be used. Beings with rights clearly have greater value.

P.S.: I’ll bet you wouldn’t think morality was useless if I swiped your Ipod.

1. That is a really HUGE plus! What use is superstition?

Superstition: The attributing to created things, properties which belong only to God.

Religious belief: Belief in God.

The more you know.

Of course, computers can be programmed to “emulate” all those behaviors. And there is no real difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the real McCoy.

On the contrary, the difference is that one is -true,- and the other is -a deception.- Furthermore, it’s a deception that a few basic tests could uncover the truth of. I think we can all see that these are ways in which computers are, presently, inferior to man.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.
…

What’s your ELO rating?

That’s a false statement. A chess player does not do calculations in the sub-consciousness.
It seems the intuition is more related to pattern recognition and experience.

Do you have a link to these experiments with chess players?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We all know that even the best chess players cannot beat the computer. And the computer now is not the “Deep Blue”, with its special architecture, it is just a simple PC, and its program. But we can still feel superior, after all we, humans have intuition, while the poor, dumb computer only has brute force at its disposal. The first question could be: “why is the intuition superior if the brute force can beat the intuition”? But this is not the question I care about in this thread.

The question is now: “what is intuition?”. There are experiments performed with the help of chess players. The player’s eye-movement is monitored with an infrared light. When the player contemplates his next move, his eyes scan the board, projecting his moves and the opponent’s response. The area being scanned sometimes narrows down, and sometimes expands as the players starts to look at a new possible move. Sometimes the eye-movement speeds up tremendously, indicating a very large number of “calculations”. The player is not aware of this very rapid eye-movement, however, all of the sudden comes the “eureka” moment, the moment of “enlightment”, when the player “sees” the best move. All that huge number of calculations happens in the sub-conscious.

Of course we don’t know how the sub-conscious “works”, but these experiments start to shed some light on this phenomenon. What it tells us that what we call “intuition” is actually a “brute force” method, hidden deep down in the sub-conscious. So there is even less reason to feel “superior”. True, we are happy when we solve a difficult problem, or if we can beat a good opponent (and the computer is not), but that is just emotion, and not intelligence.

I think that it certainly has to do with the sub-conscious activity of our minds and I suspect that it becomes more accurate as we age and our life experiences, as opposed to book learning, broaden and deepen.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

“Any craft or endeavor.”

ANY??? That is very broad.

mytruepower2:

Computers are not capable of crafts or endeavors, which result in patterns that weren’t there before, or create ideas or concepts that didn’t exist.

Read the book “Summa Technologiae” by Stanislaw Lem. He analyzed this problem and gave a practical solution.

mytruepower2:

See, that’s the problem. A computerized doctor would be incapable of the virtue of patience, because that would involve being a moral agent.

The robotic doctor would be infinitely patient, but it would not be a “virtue”. Patience is only a “virtue” when it is compared to lack of patience. In a world where everyone is patient, there can be no concept of patience. And that world is clearly superior. In a world without the “desire” to commit “negative or destructive” acts toward others (even if one is physically able to do it and could imagine to do it) there is no need for “agape”. Everyone would be kind and helpful, so the concept of “agape” would not even arise. And it would be a vastly superior world. There would still be a lot of room for “free will”, and I know that believers are obsessed with it. And in that world there would be a lot of “love”, too.

mytruepower2:

P.S.: I’ll bet you wouldn’t think morality was useless if I swiped your Ipod.

You confuse legality and morality.

mytruepower2:

Superstition: The attributing to created things, properties which belong only to God.
Religious belief: Belief in God.

Whatever. The question was: “What use is it”? You said that a computer (or robot) cannot believe in God. Maybe so. But why do you think it is a shortcoming?

mytruepower2:

On the contrary, the difference is that one is -true,- and the other is -a deception.- Furthermore, it’s a deception that a few basic tests could uncover the truth of.

No, you cannot. How do you tell if a “seemingly” sad person is “truly sad” or is a very good actor? You cannot open his skull, so you must make this decision based upon appearances.

mytruepower2:

I think we can all see that these are ways in which computers are, presently, inferior to man.

At present, for sure. But even today the world champion of chess cannot beat the computers. Watson was able to beat the best and fastest human Jeopardy champions. The diagnostic programs are better and more accurate than the doctors.

Of course none of this is connected to the question of intuition.

---

Jaaanosik:

That’s a false statement. A chess player does not do calculations in the sub-consciousness.

Are you another follower of Aristotle? Do you think that the brain is just a cooling device for the blood?

Jaaanosik:

It seems the intuition is more related to pattern recognition and experience.

Pattern recognition is also a comparison of previously stored patterns to the current one.

 

[mytruepower2]

ANY??? That is very broad.

As long as a broad statement is true, I don’t have trouble using it. You asked for a definition, and I provided one.

Read the book “Summa Technologiae” by Stanislaw Lem. He analyzed this problem and gave a practical solution.

It must not have been that practical, or at least not that easy to put into practice, because it was written way back in 1964, and we still don’t have computers that can write novels, paint masterpieces, write music in various genres, design video games or movies on their own, nor, for that matter, can they even recognize human speech reliably.

The robotic doctor would be infinitely patient, but it would not be a “virtue”.

If it’s not a virtue, it’s not patience.

You confuse legality and morality.

So the reason you’d be mad at me for ripping you off is because it’s against the law? Really?

Whatever. The question was: “What use is it”? You said that a computer (or robot) cannot believe in God. Maybe so. But why do you think it is a shortcoming?

Because man’s potential for an intimate relationship with God is possible through this, and separates him from mere, brute beasts. Computers, for the moment, are more animal-like in this regard, and in fact, are worse off, since they have no ability to recognize danger to themselves, and react to it, which even an amoeba can do.

No, you cannot. How do you tell if a “seemingly” sad person is “truly sad” or is a very good actor? You cannot open his skull, so you must make this decision based upon appearances.

There are a hundred physiological clues in the person’s face and posture, which simply cannot be suppressed or emulated, even by the best actors, but which are clear to the well-trained eye. The directions of the eye motions, for example, nostril movements, blinking rates, and even just the way a person’s blood circulates more quickly (usually most visible in the ears) when they’re in a state of intense emotion. There’s no running; no hiding. There’s only one truth.

At present, for sure. But even today the world champion of chess cannot beat the computers. Watson was able to beat the best and fastest human Jeopardy champions. The diagnostic programs are better and more accurate than the doctors.

Jeopardy should be even easier than chess for a computer, since it involves nothing more than data-matching; the computer’s most basic function. The hard part, I would imagine, would be getting the computer to recognize the words that Art Fleming was saying. I can’t imagine most computers could win if that was a condition.

“Did you say; Pour Pully?”

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

Pattern recognition is also a comparison of previously stored patterns to the current one.

It’s not happening in sub-consciousness though.
It’s a conscious retrieving of memory information.

The calculations are not happening in the sub-consciousness as well. Where did you get such information?

 

[Bagheera]

If it’s not a virtue, it’s not patience.

A new level of irrationality has been reached!

 

[mytruepower2]

A new level of irrationality has been reached!

True, but I won’t hold it against you.

The fact is that patience is the state of endurance under difficult circumstances, which can mean persevering in the face of delay or provocation. It’s not just the ability to wait effectively. That would make a rock patient.

 

[Bagheera]

mytruepower2:

The fact is that patience is the state of endurance under difficult circumstances, which can mean persevering in the face of delay or provocation.

Further nonsense. Patience is simply waiting with making a fuss about a delay. But, hey! If everything else fails, do the usual tactics of the incompetent – redefine the issue. Goodbye.