User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Distributed Ne?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Heres a brief portion of the discussion. It's slightly arguing Induction V deduction but that is language that I think can be understood by computers. So I think it could apply here.

    Sorry for the bluewing-esque post.


    "I think CC had a good point. I find that a lot of the times the stronger my deductive abilities are the more accurate my inductive reasoning skills become. Granted I haven't taken any philosophy classes so pardon me on some of the more technical terms, but it seems the more i'm aware of the "unconscious premises" dissonance talks about the stronger and tighter my inductive reasoning.

    I think I've always sort of had questions similar to dissonance especially in regards to the computational deductive processes of computers and how that makes it hard to replicate human deterministic thought because of induction. I think the trouble is we often times valuate the importance or weight of these unconscious premises in differing and hard to trace ways and then form conclusions based on this. I think that the synthesis analogy is like trying to recreate these premises in a way that new conclusions can be drawn. The pool of premises we choose from whether conscious or not is still vitally important, we just choose to deduce based on the weight we place on each one.

    pardon me if that wasn't very clear, its still a topic i'm trying to become more familiar with."---Aimahn



    "Furthermore, the question of the"weights" we put on the premises (if you want to put it that way), can also be thought of as deductively chosen as long as other premises lead to the choosing of them.

    As in, there is a hierarchical web of premises that pick the ones "lower" on the web.

    You can also think of learning in the same way. There are learning algorithms that determine where new concepts are put into the web -- those can also be thought of as a set of premises applied deductively to the new concept.

    The way I think about it is, you're genetically programmed with a few basic premises (including learning mechanisms -- premises to be used in application to new concepts, rules of metaphor if you will). Each piece of data you are exposed to is fit into the web of concepts you have so far (a piece of data can even be a new learning algorithm, it's like a Universal Turing Machine). Throughout life, you keep building this concept web until it's ridiculously complex (not that it doesn't start complex, you start with mechanisms for vision and stuff like that that are incredibly intricate).

    Anyway, some of the data you will be exposed to is inconsistent with the current structure of the web, so there also have to be learning mechanisms for resolving stuff like that.

    But the whole system is entirely deterministic; it runs exactly like a computer program.

    Each "new" idea (induction, intuition, guess, whatever you want to call it) is an exact result of a deductive calculation in your brain somewhere. "Incorrect deductions" are not logically invalid, they are only logically unsound. As in, the deductive process MUST go according to laws -- the conclusion must follow from the premises. The premises are the actual problem -- they can be inconsistent or untrue (don't correspond to reality).

    Our consciousness is merely an observer of this phenomena -- it makes up a story for what it sees. The story may or not correspond to exactly what's happening on the hardware level. Some of the premises are entirely hidden, in other words. So instead of calling it "deduction" with premises we don't have access to, we come up with a different term to describe it. Intuition, or guess, or whatever.

    The consciousness usually assumes that the fact that conclusions are sometimes incorrect means there's something fuzzy about the calculations. There's some imperfection in the brain, or there's something fundamentally different between the brain and any other information processing machine. This is not accurate. The consciousness program just doesn't have enough inputs or computing power to accurately explain other brain phenomena.

    Meh.

    My point is, there is nothing fundamentally different between brains and computers. They are both machines capable of deduction and deduction only. The labels "induction" "guess" and "intuition" are just our ways of describing deductive processes that we can't fully see." --- Dissonance
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  2. #22
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by runvardh View Post
    And past this we can only go into philosophy as science hasn't even gone past this point yet.
    What's wrong with that? It's a thought experiment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimahn View Post
    I was saying that if we want to implement it in the form of technology, it would probably be easiest if it was in computational terms.
    Yes, but the whole point is that this is the standardapproach, and is there be something better?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimahn View Post
    Heres a brief portion of the discussion. It's slightly arguing Induction V deduction but that is language that I think can be understood by computers. So I think it could apply here.
    Why can't computers learn new languages?

    Yeah, I read some of that induction vs deduction thread. It got a bit wordy.
    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance
    My point is, there is nothing fundamentally different between brains and computers. They are both machines capable of deduction and deduction only. The labels "induction" "guess" and "intuition" are just our ways of describing deductive processes that we can't fully see." ---
    I think it is premature to make this assertion, since we currently understand so little about brain architecture. And if all brains did was deduction/induction, why don't we have more complete models to work with?

    I'm not very good at asking the right questions. I try to be concise, and fail to be explicit.

    What I was thinking as I read that article is: which cognitive functions are these gamers using and how might they be modeled?

    Also, what other problems might lend themselves to the kind of solution the article describes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    I think I read somewhere that you were a programmer, so maybe the format necessary to form a bridge so to speak between the brain and programming language is more clear for you. As far as the cognitive functions used, that is a little tricky business. That is more in the strict Neuro-science realm.

    I think though that the general consensus is that there are a multitude of brain regions utilized for both the simplest of problems and the most complex. Both the particulars and the generals of what we know are always under revision.

    I think most of the more tangible and explicit things we know about the brain and its function in complex problem solving is in the extreme cases such as autism and those who process things in terms of vivid imagery. I think there's a couple of interesting studies on Einstein's brain that came to the conclusion that the area of his brain used for strict spatial processing and transformation was some magnitude larger than the average person ( a lot of autistic people have a somewhat similar arrangement). There is a constant "structuralist" verse "functionalist" debate that goes on in terms of specific areas of the brain and there uses.

    I think when the brain is approached from that aspect we can only sort of hope to get a holistic sense of how it works. Science at this point isn't able to conclusively state what side its on, one way or the other, when it comes to just how exactly the brain processes things.

    In terms of problems that can utilize the specific and unique traits of the human mind as opposed to the computer? that is a question I'll cogitate on for a minute but I'm sure there are a number of applications. It also depends sort of how intensive and serious you are, whether you prefer sort of a marketing gimmick that could expedite the process for computers, or whether you want something ultra specific and unique to the human mind.
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  4. #24
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    I'm not, think architect, not builder. I'm talking about models, not implementation details.

    I don't think you're really understanding what I'm getting at, but no matter.

    I'm not thinking about marketing at all. I'm thinking about problems amenable to this type of solution.

    Well, actually, I'm not, I'm being lazy and asking you to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    So models that would lend themselves to human thinking, or models that replicate human thinking?
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  6. #26
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^ the latter. Improve on would be even better
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. [Ne] How is Ne used exactly?
    By Into It in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 06:27 PM
  2. [Ne] Ne + MMORPG character creation
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 07:38 PM
  3. [Ne] How Do You Fuel Your Ne?
    By Lasting_Pain in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 03:14 PM
  4. [Ne] Ne!!!!!!!!!
    By CJ99 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 11:14 PM
  5. [Ne] Ne and science
    By substitute in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 12:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO