Higher Order Nonsense

On the radio this morning: a discussion about strategy in the game of chess. One of the panel mentioned that, so far, chess is the only higher order mental function that has been successfully computerized i.e. computers have beaten chess Grand Masters but are not yet capable of writing music, writing a novel etc.

Playing chess is a higher order mental function? And the man said this with SUCH confidence. But then, they do, don’t they? Especially when they wouldn’t know a higher order mental function if it slapped them on their High Brows with a wet fish!

Want to know what a real higher order mental function is? Well, it ain’t chess. Chess is trivial. Higher order mental functions are visual. The trouble is, you need to have higher order mental functions yourself to know what they are — or else you need to be able to recognize intelligence in others who are more able than yourself — and that means you have to be “pure of heart”.

But what is the real problem here? It is that those who pronounce upon intelligence are not interested in intelligence except in so far as they wish to be identified as intelligent themselves. Thus they say, “I am the standard by which intelligence is to be judged.” And thus we get a classification of mental functions which attributes greater intelligence to those in positions of greater authority.

This is reminiscent of a time when monarchs supposedly set the standard of “good”, so whatever the monarch did was “good” BECAUSE the monarch did it.

Chess is simple compared to novel Writing. It has a set of rigid rules. Language has all sorts of exceptions. And then there is semantics - good like AI mind. And then there are tropes - good luck AI mind. And then there is developing a character, setting a scene, counterpoint, irony - good luck, AI mind - and so on.

I am not saying that no AI will be able to write a decent novel, but there is so much fuzziness and rule bending and breaking, vagueness and contradiction and counterintuitiveness in Writing fiction that it is many orders more complicated.

I would actually expect semi-decent Music Before semi-decent novels.

The only reason computers can beat humans at chess is, as far as I can tell, because they can hold more future-board-states given a sequence of moves in their memory simultaneously. They’ll analyze the first move of every possible tree, throw out the obviously bad moves and look at the second move of the remaining trees, throw out the obviously bad moves and look at the third move of the remaining trees, etc. A human can’t analyze even a hundredth of the available board state trees as a computer can in the context of an actual game.

And yet humans can still sometimes beat this amazing computers.

I think the way the computers play chess is not high-level : it’s just low-level + a lot of memory. The way humans play chess is high level, with small memory.

Computers have been designed to be able to do everything that you can do, simply faster and better.
The only things that you can do better than they can are the things they haven’t yet been programmed to do… such that you could see them.

They don’t want to scare you… yet.

Computers are metaphors for brains. The human brain invented a part of its operational procedures, not all. All the computer has on us is its memory, which exceeds ours. And by the way, organic computers, with synthetic neurons, are now being built. But the goal of a computer to achieve nonmathemical properties of the human brain is still too futuristic. Hal may be an A-I dream, but for some time in the future will remain a fiction.

The strategy in chess is fairly consistent don’t lose, trite but true. Higher order nonsense requires self important genuflection on a game which is at face value little more than checkers but with a greater possibility of outcomes.

Deep Blue beat Kasparov not because it was smarter but because it was good at number crunching. Number crunching is typically not human, is it smart… Probably not.

Skynet anyone?

AIs are going to become self aware and intelligent at some point, it seems inevitable, the only question is if humans are intelligent? I doubt it. I also question the term artificial too but that is a whole 'nother thread.

I think there may come a time if we survive as a species, when, computers quantitatively will far surpass man. However will they (the computers) ever qualify as artists, writers, musicians? I very much doubt it. ,ot in the sense of not being able to reproduce current art, but invent new forms, correlate a coming trend with individual expression, and generally indulge in creative endeavor.

However, cyborgs are another matter. Even this threshold may be overcome with a fusional man such as blade runner replicants, if this stage of development is ever reached.

Probably true, that said man can augment himself too so…

They have tended to be a bit more than number crunchers with priorities and ways of analyzing situations - some even given more specific programming, like those against Kasparov. But agreed, vast fast analysis is the advantage and this is a dumb process in the sense that it needs Little intelligence.

Or a slow mind. Yes, nicely put.

Perhaps, but chess is something they were willing to show us, in this scenario, and this is likely because it really ain’t such an accomplishment.

Computers are simply a storage system for human thought information. A computer cannot represent a neuron…a neuron is created from its own cellular information as a natural part of consciousness. A computer is not consciousness, synthetic represents itself…synthetic, therefore it could never represent a natural cell, no matter how stupid the human being trying to copy it proposes.

The reason I call this human being stupid is because this sort of system would only be used to abuse the total of human ability to think for itself. We already have computer relayed information streaming through the atmosphere that can be downloaded and uploaded, without anyone being aware. Hence unknown to many except some psychics, NASA already is using a human contact brain program for the use of mind involved possession.

Non mathematical properties of the human brain, what a laugh…you use mathematics to propose a non mathematic solution who are you kidding, I really am sick and tired of evil science…hope you reach your goal soon…self destruction.

Higher-order just means that the specific function evolved later. For example, there are some people (not me) who think of consciousness as a higher order function of the brain. Under this definition the ability to play chess does seem to be a higher-order function since I do not know of any species that also plays chess. So I think the scientist wasn’t wrong to call it a higher-order function.

I think you think that he means something else. Like “better” or something. In any regard, I hope I cleared up this whole mess for you.