Snow Crash - 'Information Hygiene'

[Rafajafar]

I got the idea because you jumped in, claimed my argument was invalid, proceded to beg the question, and then gave rousing support for someone who wasn't even debating what I was saying, just stating probing questions.

I mean, you can cut me down as "your little scientist bitch" and even made up pet names like "paramedian" all you want, but if you don't bother to back up your cocky attitude with counter-reason, YOU are the farce.

And to the contrary, Trix. YOUR personal beliefs that morality CANNOT be expressed as a mathematical equation is NOT justified. I'm doing well to justify my claims. You, however, give no justification whatsoever for your own. How can you state that I'm wrong unless you support it. That's meaningless ego masturbation, in my opinion.

and the arguement that you presented about the beliefs needing to follow basic mathematical properties would be valid. actually, it is valid. i don't, however, beleive it is sound.

Alright. So, the premises are the problem, then? Which of the premises makes the argument unsound...exactly? You seem to believe so much. Express your beliefs.

Are you at all related to Warrior Monk?

[Marshall McDaniel]

---
You caused me no trouble at all trix. I enjoy questioning things.
---
We all have our own special domain of knowledge. The whole array being so large at this point that we almost have to specialize. That doesn't mean that some are more important or smarter than others, just that we're each looking at a different facet of this wondrous diamond.
---
on the subject of honor, i just had to go on that tangent (you'll soon find out that i have a penchant for tangents). I have a vague notion of convergence and divergence as it relates to functions, it's funny i've thought the same thing myself (about honor (or good in my case)converging and the bad, or dishonor diverging) in a different way, the straight and narrow necessarily converges.
---
Forgiveness takes the life of the sin! I see that very well. This one Kierkegaardian quote made my day. The magnanimousness portrayed by Aristotle is given a mathematical basis.
---

Does deep knowledge necessarily entail understanding how the pieces of knowledge work together in a kind of 'right-brain' way as opposed to a left brain person who sees pieces in more minute detail but does not see the gestalt or the pieces of knowledge working harmoniously as one and becoming greater than the sum of it's parts as a right brained person would? I don't think the converse true. it seems that a left brain person would be apt to use fragile knowledge a great deal, but so would a right brain person. It does, however, seem likely to me that a right brain person is more capable of deep knowledge.

The whole left/right brain thing is a bit antiquated i think, but it goes far in explaining different methods of ascertaining knowledge.

[Rafajafar]

I think I understand what you're saying with that. Well, this, again, is a matter of perspective. In the begining of life, one can either branch toward understanding "the bigger picture", or into understanding "the right of detail". The anal psychosexual stage of development is probably the major point when this is set into stone. You can become anal retentive, or anal expulsive...or neither... a paramedian (Hah!). This is possible...but what you have to see is that it becomes varying degrees, but it starts as one major branch.

Code: Select all

|   |   |  |  |
\  /\  /\ /\ /
  |   |  |   |
   \ /\ /\  /
    |   |   |
     \ /\  /
      |   |
       \ /
        |

Varying degrees of perspective, all rooted from one choice and developing further over time. To the right the micro, to the left, the macro, in the end, neither stronger or weaker than the other, but different. Consider how many physicists can't even tie their shoes without help (I used to work at http://www.jlab.org ...these guys are nuts!). It's not better, it's different.

LATE EDIT:
After reading this again (I'm constantly trying to disprove myself), I felt I did not explain well enough and had a major hole left open...

Sure, neither the extreme left or the extreme right are bad (although, I'm sure they'll see that differently), my point was that they could both be based on fragile knowledge.

This is where the idea of an abstraction layer comes into play. People rely on abstraction layers in excess sometimes, and tend to forget the fact that there are other layers below the ones they see, or even above. If you get stuck on one layer for too long, you tend to start missing the real truth of the matter...the base truth. You also can be blind to possibilities..but that's neither strong or fragile knowledge...it's lack of creativity.

Sooo, to use my lopsided tree again...

Code: Select all

|   |   |  |  |
\  /\  /\ /\ /
  |   |  |   |  <----fairly fragile knowledge, many perspectives, diluted truth
   \ /\ /\  /
    |   |   |
     \ /\  /
      |   |     <---fairly strong knowledge, two perspectives, half truth
       \ /
        |       <----strongest knowledge possible, mostly likely not achieveable by man

[trix]

In terms of morality, you can represent a system as a coefficient A for each terms times an integer N

this is an assumption. its unstated, but it is made. from there, you validly build an arguement that IF morality and beliefs can be assigned numbers, they would follow the pattern of convergence and lead to your concept of sin.

the angle that you are coming from takes this assumption for granted. the comp sci department gernerally takes this for granted. philosophy does not.

why i do not accept this assumption is not presented in this post, you're right. maybe in another thread, coming soon....

f.y.i. i'm not related to monk, i'm not in the buisness of making words up, and i didn't really interject since this was hardly a private conversation.

[Rafajafar]

In terms of morality, you can represent a system as a coefficient A for each terms times an integer N

this is an assumption. its unstated, but it is made. from there, you validly build an arguement that IF morality and beliefs can be assigned numbers, they would follow the pattern of convergence and lead to your concept of sin.

You're right. I felt this to be self evident from the basic premise that all reason is derived from the basic "true" and the basic "false". If you can show me otherwise, then, yes, you've done a good job, and can prove me wrong. But since I've built on NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, other than this base proof, then I don't see where you have any ground to stand on and I await your proof eagerly.

[Matt]

Boy has this thread gone OT. I'll read through the arguments of subjective knowledge at a later date as I'm firmly in the objective camp.

Anyway, this post is about the validity of the analogy.

Well, you can disagree until your face turns blue, but that's an absolute fact. Turing computers cannot concieve of the infinite. It's part of their flaw. They can solve any FINITE problem.

At which point exactly did I mention Turing machines??? That's your assumption, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

If computers which are turing have problems with the infinite, get rid of the turing qualification. It's still software/hardware. There was absolutely never a qualification that the computer analogy was turing limited. That's your own, utterly wrong, conclusion. If they can't, then they can't, there will be a computer which isn't bounded by the turing qualification because there's already one in nature, an example you used, namely us.

Humans are not bounded by the Turing qualification, so computers don't have to be either. A machine that exactly models our neural connections will still be a computer. Or do you want to move the goal posts again and claim it won't be a computer so you can prove yourself right?

Furthermore, how do you know that a system based on Turing qualifications can't break out of its boundaries and create an architecture which is capable of non-turing thought.. You're actually quite staggeringly wrong when you say we can concieve of the infinite. We can concieve of the concept of the infinite, but not infinity itself. Most philosophers of mathematics accept that. It makes perfect sense for us to talk about infinity, but we can't actually know what infinity is because of the way our brains are limited.

Don't ever say I have baseless claims or don't know what I'm talking about while trying to cloud the argument with bullshit. It's just not polite, fine jump on someone if they make a tit out of themselves but trying to go technical doesn't work, we never mentioned a Turing qualification and you quite staggeringly ignored the fact that there already is a physical construction out there capable of non-turing thought and that is us. Any machine modelled on us will therefore be non-Turing bounded and any layman would call it a computer. Therefore such intelligence would not be apparant it would be actual. Your argument can never be right. The analogy stands and I wish you'd just damn well admit it instead of trying to score points.

I'm still arguing your original claim that there is no innate knowledge. If you want to switch horses mid stream, at least fire a flare so we don't die trying to prevent you from drowning.
Ideas are somewhat different in that they are generally faith based...which is irrational by nature and does not fit the realm of this discussion, in my opinion.

But....just a point. Isn't all knowledge an idea? It's merely an idea that is categorically true.

Some further points, when did I mention innate knowledge? How do I need a flare to save me if I didn't? By coincidence, I am quite happy to argue there are no innate ideas, only innate impulses. But I diodn't actually say anything about innate ideas. Secondly did I say that knowledge aren't ideas? Your 'point' was the whole bloody point of my original post in the first place. No, I said knowledge isn't what should be used in Stephenson's analogy, ideas should be. Precisely because ideas include knowledge but can also be false.

So twice you're attacking my arguments when they're actually not my arguments. Please try and read my posts before you jump to your conclusions.

[Rafajafar]

Prepare for some acid tongue action.

Anyway, this post is about the validity of the analogy.

Which I still think isn't valid.

Well, you can disagree until your face turns blue, but that's an absolute fact. Turing computers cannot concieve of the infinite. It's part of their flaw. They can solve any FINITE problem.

At which point exactly did I mention Turing machines??? That's your assumption, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

I mentioned Turing machines. I'm sorry, is this your conversation? Are you the only person allowed to bring up new points? No? Ok, then.

If computers which are turing have problems with the infinite, get rid of the turing qualification. It's still software/hardware. There was absolutely never a qualification that the computer analogy was turing limited. That's your own, utterly wrong, conclusion. If they can't, then they can't, there will be a computer which isn't bounded by the turing qualification because there's already one in nature, an example you used, namely us.

Ok, you claim through most of your posts that I'm making assumptions. Did you ever think that, perhaps, you are?

Here's what I think you're assuming.

If it can reach a conclusion via reasonable methods, it is a computer. Why do I say you make this assumption? Because you're comparing humans to computers. I'm trying to tell you, that is not the case. It is not a fair comparison! There have been machines since ancient greece that could do computations. They're not considered computers. Why? Why aren't calculators considered computers? Turing. Why aren't humans considered computers? Intellect.

If it is not Turing complete, it is still a computer. The Turing test for intelligence is pretty ignorant if you ask me. It lacks "faith". It lacks the ability to understand things that aren't, not just things that are. Turing fails to define intelligence, he just set up terms to say that something is Intellect Sufficient. I do not adhere to this belief. Turing completeness is the definition of a computer. Any problem that can be solved rationally, within a definite limit of time, can be solved by a Turing complete machine.

Humans are not bound by Turing completeness, so computers shouldn't be either Turing complete means that it can solve any problem. By this respect, humans are Turing complete. However, it ignores that the hardware is wired for false shit.Why, if we are merely computers, are humans flawed? Perhaps, we don't fit into the computer category. Perhaps, just perhaps, we don't operate on standard input->output.

Knowledge is the same thing as software Why? This makes no sense to me. If knowledge and ideals are software, what is the input? If knowledge can never be known, then what is the point of this argument anyway? It would have to have some absolute truth (hence the arguments for ideal truth and knowledge).

Computers can't concieve the infinite because we haven't made one smart enough yet This is actually your fallacy. You assumed that because we've surpassed our expectations before, that it is reasonable to expect us to surpass our expectations in the future. I, however, stated that perhaps, with the idea of a "computer", we'll reach a hard limit to what can be accomplished. Now, I've illustrated that your idea of a computer is very different than mine, and that I have far more respect for humanity than to assume we are merely number crunchers. But, again, that's beyond the point. I can show you how, unless you have an exponential system that can solve in under N time, you are not going to be able to concieve of the infinite. I also debate that as a result of this system, all accuracy is resigned to simple approximation, and the benefit increase is the ability to think ahead. Foresight. The ability to see what could instead of what is. That's not very useful to people, who are pretty god damn efficient at this as is. But ok, if you consider that some form of computer, I'll let you get away with it. I don't. There's not so much "computation" going on as there is "imagination".If there was more computation, we would have evolved the same knowledge, as there would be only one reasonable choice to make. "It would be insane to comit an act of evil knowingly as it is irrational". Hey, guess what, people do this all the time. I'd like to see a computer do that.

Humans are not bounded by the Turing qualification, so computers don't have to be either. A machine that exactly models our neural connections will still be a computer. Or do you want to move the goal posts again and claim it won't be a computer so you can prove yourself right?

Matt, that's what I've been saying since day one. I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm pointing to where they should be.

Furthermore, how do you know that a system based on Turing qualifications can't break out of its boundaries and create an architecture which is capable of non-turing thought.. You're actually quite staggeringly wrong when you say we can concieve of the infinite. We can concieve of the concept of the infinite, but not infinity itself. Most philosophers of mathematics accept that. It makes perfect sense for us to talk about infinity, but we can't actually know what infinity is because of the way our brains are limited.

First, I want to meet these "most philosophers and mathematicians" and kick them in their fucking shins. If it were not for our being able to concieve of the infinite, I would not be able to understand math past precalc. I claim that I very much can concieve of infinity and to prove it, ask me a number, I'll tell you whether or not there's another out there greater than it (including sqrt(-1)). You think the rules of how to handle infninite systems came from trial and error? LOL.

Don't ever say I have baseless claims or don't know what I'm talking about while trying to cloud the argument with bullshit.

You made the baseless claim that I was refering to Eliza machines when I meant intelligent. I know that Eliza's aren't intelligent.In fact, prior to the post you claimed that this was my stance, I stated that Eliza programs only appeared intelligent. That was a baseless claim.

Not only that, but you ARE wholly uneducated on the subject. You don't want to think you are, but you are. Riddle me this, and be honest, do you even know what it means for an algorithm to be O(n) and the importance between it being O(N) compared to Log2(N) in terms of efficiency?

It's just not polite, fine jump on someone if they make a tit out of themselves but trying to go technical doesn't work, we never mentioned a Turing qualification and you quite staggeringly ignored the fact that there already is a physical construction out there capable of non-turing thought and that is us.

First off, god forbid I get technical and attempt to educate you :rolls:

Second, you are assuming humans are computers. I don't agree with THAT comparison, so why would I find that at all relevant? I ignored nothing, I don't agree with you. Sssooorrryyy!

Any machine modelled on us will therefore be non-Turing bounded and any layman would call it a computer.

That's why I don't listen to laymen. I understand the feeling of allegiance you have with your people, but really, let those who know make the definitions, k?

Therefore such intelligence would not be apparant it would be actual. Your argument can never be right. The analogy stands and I wish you'd just damn well admit it instead of trying to score points.

What??? First off, I haven't seen any proof from you that man's intelligence isn't apparent. I can't prove it, I'm a solipsist. I think you are just a function of my mind, a voice of self doubt. *laughs*

No, my friend, you can never be right. If that's your goal, by the way, then you're the one keeping score.

As for the knowledge crap, dun care. Moot point. I'm over it, and you're taking too much of my time for something that doesn't deserve reiteration for your benefit.

[Matt]

For god's sake, you're at it again! When did I mention Turing completeness????? I was talking about a Turing qualification in general. I don't think the Turting test is a valid measure either.

Ok, we are getting somewhere though:

Now, I've illustrated that your idea of a computer is very different than mine, and that I have far more respect for humanity than to assume we are merely number crunchers.

Are you a further fact man? Believing Mankind has something magical in their brains which gives them intelligence? Because I'm not, I believe we are given intelligence through the complexity of the way our brain is wired up. It's a very common view called reductionism. If you believe in reductionism you must believe in the analogy. It's as simple as that because a reductionist believes it is possible for intellignece to rise out of a complex arrangement of physical matter. If you don't, your argument must rest on the fact that you believe in a further fact about intelligence, rather than trying to say that the computers are bounded by a 0(N) computation while ours are exponential. And believeing in Reductionism increases my respect for humanity, we so easily could not have happened.

As for infinity, read what I said, we can concieve of the concept, but not inifinity itself. You were talking about the concept, it is impossible for you to think of infinity itself precisely because you have a finite brain, even an exponential computational process is still finite.

[Rafajafar]

For god's sake, you're at it again! When did I mention Turing completeness????? I was talking about a Turing qualification in general. I don't think the Turting test is a valid measure either.

Holy cow, you have got to be the laziest reader on the boards.

I mentioned Turing machines. I'm sorry, is this your conversation? Are you the only person allowed to bring up new points? No? Ok, then.

Turing completeness is VERY relevant to this conversation. I brought it up, not you. When you make the argument that computers can be compared to humans, I counter with the idea of Turing completeness and the big O of a machine. The turing test for intelligence is an ENTIRELY other subject, one that I think Marshall brought up. Not me. It's pseudo-science.

Are you a further fact man? Believing Mankind has something magical in their brains which gives them intelligence? Because I'm not, I believe we are given intelligence through the complexity of the way our brain is wired up. It's a very common view called reductionism. If you believe in reductionism you must believe in the analogy. It's as simple as that because a reductionist believes it is possible for intellignece to rise out of a complex arrangement of physical matter. If you don't, your argument must rest on the fact that you believe in a further fact about intelligence, rather than trying to say that the computers are bounded by a 0(N) computation while ours are exponential. And believeing in Reductionism increases my respect for humanity, we so easily could not have happened.

No, I believe that humans operate different from computers. This is based on a list of things that I have already told you. It's rediculous to compare the two. I think calling our brain "hardware" is being too simplistic and unfair, as is stating that knowledge is software. Knowledge is more like a domino effect, you knock something over, the next one falls and the brain continues to run with this loop of information until you die. It's neither bad nor good, and to state that there is bad knowledge or good knowledge disgusts me

LIKE I SAID! I've seen people take bad knowledge and do amazing things with it.

As for infinity, read what I said, we can concieve of the concept, but not inifinity itself. You were talking about the concept, it is impossible for you to think of infinity itself precisely because you have a finite brain, even an exponential computational process is still finite.

I can percieve what it means to be infinite. It's not a problem. Perhaps you'd argue that it's just a more advanced perception, but I can tell you...I see it. No big deal. I can picture what it means in my mind, I can wrap my consciousness around it, and it's no big deal. I'd bet you can, too. You just need to sit on the idea for about a month...that's all it took for me.

The problem you're ignoring is that computers cant even derive the infinite without being given a ruleset for infinity. Humans saw that some patterns will go on forever, and then came up with infinity. Computers cannot do that because they are fooled into believing that the world is finite....

Why? Because all computers today are built around the turing machine. If you find a way to doo things that is better, that's no longer a computer in my mind. It's too awesome. It's like comparing bicycle with a space shuttle.

[Matt]

The problem you're ignoring is that computers cant even derive the infinite without being given a ruleset for infinity.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just that you're too stuibborn to realise that it's irrelevant, you're seeing computers as they are now and what their bounds are now.

It's like your utterly pointless mention of the Turing qualifications. Computers don't HAVE to be Turing limited. You just think they do because they are now. You're letting your specific knowledge of today's computers and how they operate TODAY blind you.

The analogy is valid, it is fine, you're too stubborn to admit it.

And you are also quite lala if you think you can imagine infinity, as whatever you are imagining must be bounded in some way, so, again, you are wrong. It doesn't matter how long you sit down and think about it, it's quite impossible.

Because all computers today are built around the turing machine. If you find a way to doo things that is better, that's no longer a computer in my mind. It's too awesome.

Ho hum, trying to move the goal posts again! Quantum computers will be radically different, fundamentally different, to present ones, but all people within the field of CS are still calling them quantum computers. COMPUTERS. Oh, and exactly what are they not going to be?? Oh yeah, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TURING!! Sorry Rafajafar, caught you with your hand in the cookie jar there! So are you disagreeing with every other computer scientist out there? Or is it that you just can't stand being wrong?

[Alien]

If people go and corrupt knowledge it will lead to groups of people being affected and changing how they view themselves and the world around them, like propaganda. So to him, to have good people you must have good knowledge or at least knowledge that hasn’t been corrupted by people with illicit motivations.

Anybody got any thoughts on this?

Illicit motivations and vested interests - everybody has hidden motives and a hidden agenda it's part of the human condition. Take them away, our bad knowledge 'virus infected' thoughts by using Information Hygiene and 'clean knowledge' would take away what makes us human. It's all in our memes... memetics as the great man himself a certain Mr Dawkins tells us

[Pax Vitae]

It's all in our memes ... memetics as the great man himself a certain Mr Dawkins tells us

Haha, funny you should highlight that book, as I bought it 5 days ago along with 2 others. I’m just about to start “The Selfish Gene”, then “The Blind Watchmaker”, and finally “The Meme Machine”. Metaviod & Matt put me onto his work and this idea, it’s the main reason I haven’t replied much in this topic, as I’m trying to catch up on the reading.

[Rafajafar]

Matt! For christ's sake! Look up the information you're going to argue about before you argue about it!

I am soooo certain that you have NO IDEA what the BigO of an algorithm is, what a turing machine is, and what it means to be turing complete now....

Hell. I doubt you even know basic architecture and design of computers.

K, guess what, bud. Quantum computers ARE TURING MACHINES! I caught YOUR fucking hand in the cookie jar.

REad this, bud.

The Turing machine, developed by Alan Turing in the 1930s, consists of tape of unlimited length that is divided into little squares. Each square can either hold a symbol (1 or 0) or be left blank. A read-write device reads these symbols and blanks, which gives the machine its instructions to perform a certain program. Does this sound familiar? Well, in a quantum Turing machine, the difference is that the tape exists in a quantum state, as does the read-write head. This means that the symbols on the tape can be either 0 or 1 or a superposition of 0 and 1. While a normal Turing machine can only perform one calculation at a time, a quantum Turing machine can perform many calculations at once.

Fucking hell.

You are pissing me off, stop arguing with me, you don't have the knowledge to compete. I know more than you about this, period. That's not a blow, as I'm sure you're MORE than capable of learning. You just haven't yet, and you're making an ass out of yourself.

Good bye, Matt.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer1.htm

[Pangloss]

Ladies. Ladies. I've no idea what you're talking about BUT passionate though you're both getting about it, remember the subconscious ILP mantra - "Lets Be Nice".

Just stay rational, engage with each others points, don't get horrible with another person, don't assume they know nothing, ask them what they know/don't know, find stuff out, try hard to know the other person's position, concede ignorance, overcome ignorance blablabla ... even if you are a couple of nerds talking about computers.

(this debate actually does look quite interesting. 'll read it.) big special effort, Matt/Rafajafar

carry on ...

[Rafajafar]

Your mantra conflicts with my personal philosophy.

If that's going to be a problem, tell me now. I'll understand if my point of view and method of execution offends you and will sadly leave.

[Pangloss]

All I'm saying is to try and avoid unnecessary personal attacks, and keep to what you're discussing. You don't need to leave, but can you let your aggression out somewhere else? Posturing is dull. This is meant to be a peacock-freezone.

[Matt]

Indeed, I know I am letting him goad me, but I'm starting to get annoyed with his know it all attitude. So figure this the last foray, if it does not succeed I shall have to admit defeat in the face of obstinance.

I mean honestly Rafajafar, you didn't even read what you posted! If a (so-called) Quantum Turing machine can have more states than 0 and 1 (ignoring the blanks), poof, your previous arguments about the limitations of a Turing system disappear out of the window.

A quantum computer can operate in an exponential manner like your example about humans which you very very clearly earlier on said Turing machines couldn't. Which is it to be? Are quantum computers Turing, but what you stated about Turing limitations is wrong, or are Quantum computers not Turing, making what you said about Turing computation perfectly right, but what you said about Quantum computers wrong? Or are you going to say Quantum computers can't operate exponentially?

Or am I too stupid to understand simple concepts like Turing machines? Even though we covered the damn things in our first year of uni? Which kind of indicates they're pretty damn simple to understand.

[Rafajafar]

I mean honestly Rafajafar, you didn't even read what you posted! If a (so-called) Quantum Turing machine can have more states than 0 and 1 (ignoring the blanks), poof, your previous arguments about the limitations of a Turing system disappear out of the window.

Wrong! Oh my god, that is sooo wrong! It's still a Turing machine! Turing machines are independent of the number system they use.

How do quantum computers work? Like a Turing machine, only with three possible states instead of two. It's no longer "on" or "off", but "on", "off" and "on-off". It's a tertiary Turing machine. I'm sorry if my "know it all attitude" conflicts with your blind ignorance.

A quantum computer can operate in an exponential manner like your example about humans which you very very clearly earlier on said Turing machines couldn't. Which is it to be? Are quantum computers Turing, but what you stated about Turing limitations is wrong, or are Quantum computers not Turing, making what you said about Turing computation perfectly right, but what you said about Quantum computers wrong? Or are you going to say Quantum computers can't operate exponentially?

I'm going to say Quantum computers are not exponential.

Do not mix up speed for efficiency. There's a difference. Modern processors can sort things much faster than their predecessors, but the algorithms they use to do so are just efficient. Now, take a quantum machine. It has the ability to run a finite number of calculations at once, as opposed to just one. But the efficiency is still the same. That's the BigO. In other words, it's as though you're taking several million processors and running them together so that they can each handle several tasks, but the tasks won't enter or leave any faster than they came. To make it more clear, it's pipelining to the extreme. It runs at BigO(n), but it is able to do so extremely fast.

Soo, it's like adding another processor to your computer. However, if you add one extra, or 1000 extra, are you saying that this machine magically turns into an exponential number cruncher? Are dual Xeon machines exponential machines? No? Why not? Oh! That's right, they're Turing machines, which dictates on efficiency, not speed. It still operates on a stack that can only feed one instruction at a time....even if the processor can take more complex instructions on its own.

Or am I too stupid to understand simple concepts like Turing machines? Even though we covered the damn things in our first year of uni? Which kind of indicates they're pretty damn simple to understand.

No, I don't think you're too stupid for anything. I think you're trying to make your argument fit by any means necessary and don't want to properly research what you're arguing. It doesn't fit. Period. I'm frustrated with you beyond belief. I get the feeling this is a game to you.

You know, it's hard not to act like a know it all when you know more than someone who is lambasting your point of view. It's a matter of pride, you know. If I let the right answer go and be the bigger man, I feel as though I'm losing face with myself, that I didn't defend myself, that I'm weak. However, if I call it out publicly, then I'm the "know-it-all" badguy who is picking on people. No, that's not my intention. I don't know what else to say, though. If you're wrong, you're wrong; if I feel you're wasting my time by making claims that aren't true at an attempt to poke holes in my argument, then you're going to piss me off.

[Matt]

I think you're trying to make your argument fit by any means necessary and don't want to properly research what you're arguing. It doesn't fit. Period. I'm frustrated with you beyond belief. I get the feeling this is a game to you.

It's exactly the way I feel about your arguments so far. The first thing you said, OT, was that the analogy wasn't valid, and you gave a technical reason why it wasn't valid. All I did was point out that the technical reason wasn't valid, the analogy is perfectly coherent.

The truth is that the analogy would still have been valid even if your objections were valid. Even if a computer isn't capable of exponential processing and thus incapable of realising the concept of the infinite, it would still be fair to compare a human's brain and ideas to that of hardware and software and then to talk of viruses. It is, after all, just an analogy and in the end the two types of systems are roughly the same even if one is capable of exponential processing and the other is not. Both have unchanging bits, both have bits that can change from second to second, both can become 'obsessed' with a singular concept that they pass on to others, an agressive 'virus' or fervent idea.

Perhaps that's the line I should have taken from the start, but I thought looking into your reasons for effectively dismissing the idea that actual machine intelligence is possible (what I referred to as AI originally, though now I distinguish from apparant intillegence, though one could argue both are AI depending on your interpretation of the word artificial) would be enlightening as I've heard the idea that AI is impossible before and actually want to know what the arguments for that stance were. I am here to learn after all.

I'm going to say Quantum computers are not exponential.

Quantum computers operate exponentially. They do not have three states, they can be in one of two states or they can be in both simultaneously. It is utterly different to them having three states. You're thinking too much like a computer scientist about it, there are 2^M states, which is an exponential function. It means that while a normal computer operates in a linear fashion, a quantum computer, relying on parrallelism, operates exponentially. The extent of that exponential processing is limited by its physcial bounds, exactly the same as us.

The whole point is the speed, the input doesn't matter, after all we only have a finite linear input ourselves, we have x amount of photon detectors, x amount of nerves, etc. etc., it's our processing that's important. The fundamental thing about a quantum computer is that it is possible to solve problems on a QC that classical Turing ones can't. There is much debate about whether a Quatum Turing computer is possible, if a quantum computer is Turing and what exactly is a quantum computer.

And it's not like putting a 1000 processors together, two conventional processors are still two processors that operate in a linear fashion. When you multiply a graphic linear function by a 1000 it doesn't suddenly turn into an exponential one. That is the point with why everyone's so excited by Quantum computers, it's not that we're jumping from 2.4 gig to 24 gig processors, it's that we would be fundamentally changing the processing of the information, the whole point is that it's moving away from the limitations of a Turing machine!

In the end, I admit I don't know all that much about quantum computers, I am no expert. But I do know the basics and I know enough to know that you were trying to wing it with your arguments, which is especially annoying when you accuse me of winging it.

[Rafajafar]

I'm sorry, Matt. You're still wrong. I shant be posting much while on break, probably, but this one bugged me way too much to let go....

First, the science bit.

Quantum computers operate exponentially. They do not have three states, they can be in one of two states or they can be in both simultaneously. It is utterly different to them having three states. You're thinking too much like a computer scientist about it, there are 2^M states, which is an exponential function. It means that while a normal computer operates in a linear fashion, a quantum computer, relying on parrallelism, operates exponentially. The extent of that exponential processing is limited by its physcial bounds, exactly the same as us.

Ok...let's see...

On...off....on and off... seems like three to me. Care to explain how this is AT ALL 2^M states?

*rolls eyes*

Sophist.

Speed IS everything...for a computer. However, not for intellect. If our brains operated 10000 times faster than they do now, we'd need computers that operate 10000 times faster. However, if our brains operated 10000 times slower, then our current computers will accomplish tasks in the blink of our eyes.

Again...the difference between computers and intellect. Flexible Creative Judgement.

The analogy is bunk before we even got onto the tangents we did, too.

The truth is that the analogy would still have been valid even if your objections were valid. Even if a computer isn't capable of exponential processing and thus incapable of realising the concept of the infinite, it would still be fair to compare a human's brain and ideas to that of hardware and software and then to talk of viruses. It is, after all, just an analogy and in the end the two types of systems are roughly the same even if one is capable of exponential processing and the other is not. Both have unchanging bits, both have bits that can change from second to second, both can become 'obsessed' with a singular concept that they pass on to others, an agressive 'virus' or fervent idea.

The nature of a human is that is grows. It does change. People have been hit so hard that they became mentally retarded or mentally ill. People also have been hit so hard they have become savants. The brain evolves, whether we like it or not. The universe is the brain's input. It grows with time, despite knowledge, despite ideals.

You first stated that there was bad knowledge. You later refined this to mean bad ideals. I'm not the one moving goal posts.

I'll go with your ideals. Ok, so there are bad ideals. Where do these ideals come from? Previous bad ideals? Where did those bad ideals come from? Other bad ideals? What about before then all the way back to the first life form? What created evil? I'm not sure, but I can sure tell you think it was a bad idea.

*chuckles*

Really, you have a problem with original sin if you take the human function out of humanity and reduce them down to computers. Have you ever considered that man, himself, was hardwired for evil or good? No matter how much knowledge you place in this person, positive or negative, their tendencies remain the same?

For instance, the propaganda model. People are wired to be sheep. I am not. You, obviously, are not. Therefore, do you not think yourself more "good" because you are a natural skeptic? Do you think this is inherited? Do you think it is taught?

I was born with clinical depression and social anxiety disorder. I was hard wired to be an outcast. I have overcome this. It has taken many years, but I have found my outlets, and have found people that are able to recognize me for the magnificent, amazing, sexy, unbelievably cool, funny, talented, unique, and well hung person I am (*coughs*). Is that due to "good knowledge"? I don't think it is. I think it's due to medication that I was on for many, many, many years (since sixth grade). I think these medications allowed me to percieve things in my world as they are, not asI thought they appeared. However, despite these medications, I was still a social outcast most of my life. I had the same behaviour traits. My knowledge was all good, but I hadn't changed the hardware, only the input. It wasnt until I went off of these medications for a year that I recognized my problem...it was how I was wired. So, instead of fighting it, I went with it. Hence the hateful, cantankerous individual you see before yourself. This wasn't knowledge, it wasnt conscious, though, this was the brain's hardware fending off bad input. I grew callous, and more cynical. Detatched.

See, though, this shows me, knowledge is not the problem. People are. It's innate. It's hardware (since you STILL seem to like the computer analogy...even though my argument is that there is no such thing as knowledge or ideas, only semi-software we call the brain...a blow to the head can have the same effect as an enlightening quote, but the blow is more permanent and you don't have to remember it). We are as apparently random as the universe with live in. No computer can match that, even if they do operate exponentially. There is something unique about a biological creature.

If you want to speak to me of biological computers, fine, whatever. So long as they don't have the potential to say "no" (if even in their own special way), I don't see why we should even argue if they're alive.

Personally, I find it insulting that you wish to limit human thought, because human thought is all about interrelations. There is an INFINITE possibility of what a person can and how they think. If you want to say that this is a trait that computers can share and still retain the word computers, I think you're shortchanging humanity....but it's a battle of terms at that point anyway.
[/quote]

[Matt]

Ok...let's see...

On...off....on and off... seems like three to me. Care to explain how this is AT ALL 2^M states

Right, I didn't bother to read anymore.

If you don't know what 2^M states is, it's the number of states the computer has where M is the number of qubits. Amazingly it is not 3M as you are suggesting, it is 2 to the power of M. It is so categorically not "On...off....on and off... seems like three to me". So if you had 4 qubits you'd have 16 possible states, not 12 as you are suggesting. And it grows exponentially.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computation - Read the bit where it says how they work, if you don't trust that link search on quantum computers yourself, 99% will mention 2^m, where m is the number of qubits.

You don't even know the basics of quantum computers, why did you try and argue with me? And the worst part is all the infomration on them was one google away.

[Rafajafar]

Holy cow, you're right. *is excited by quantum computers all of a sudden*

I was wrong. Fragile knowledge strikes again.

To answer your question, why did I argue if I didn't know? Because I thought I knew. I did not. I see "three state machine" and did the math in my head... wasn't impressed. There's a world of "holy shit" in qubits (had to search through Wiki's referenced articles before it hit me like a ton of bricks). Impressive stuff. It's still a turing machine, but one where all possible answers happen at once because all operations performed on one bit happens to all subsequent possible inputs....simultaneously. I see how this works now.. Thanks Matt!

So, I'm very sorry, I shouldn't have presumed. Savor the flavor, though. ;-P

Is that your last gripe?