SillySapienne
`~~Philosoflying~~`
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 9,801
- MBTI Type
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
Algorithmic versus heuristic thought processes.
dissonance,
Think in terms of natural selection. What good would a brain be if it were a perfect deduction machine? Perhaps it would have some use, but would have a major disadvantage--all the right premises woud have to be "built in". Imagine that this kind of brain evolves, but some mistakes creep into the system i.e. occassionally the information copying processes make mistakes a create something novel (analogous to genetic mutations). Sometimes these ideas will be flawed, even hazardous, but from time to time they might actually be improvements, good ideas, and worth keeping. Eventually natural selection begins selecting for brains which make these "mistakes", and moreover, for cognitive apparatus which deal with and evaluate them.
Some billion years later, brains are systematically making "mistakes", and calling them inductions, abductions, or more accurately, good guesses.
The "mistakes" need not arise from any contradiction, for example, inductive inference is invalid, but not contradictory. In any case, I am not sure what you mean by 'those "mistakes" are still reached through deduction'; they are created by a process, but since the content of the conclusion goes beyond the premises, there does not seem to be anything deductive about them (that is, there is extra content which cannot be reduced to anything which came before). Indeed, without some method of generating new ideas (mutations), learning (evolution) could not take place.One last try: those "mistakes" are still reached through deduction. It's our premises that are contradictory to each other, the conclusions are always logically valid, just not always sound.
(that is, there is extra content which cannot be reduced to anything which came before)
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.
That makes sense to me. The question that's really interesting to me would be how do you account for the benefits of what we call "inductive" or "intuitive" reasoning on a computer level. Basically, there are a lot of creative and ingenious ideas that are borne of that type of thinking and to me it would seem hard to replicate on a computer level. How would we sort of put the barriers( the deductive processes that we can't see) in a computers reasoning so they can also reap the benefits of creative thought and ingenuity.
To go back to CC's point how do you sort of put a value on the ability to synthesize, we all know computers can deduce or analyze with the best of them. It seems to me more valuable and challenging to synthesize information in to something novel than to analyze something to perfection, which is what we would be doing if we could see all the deductive processes that occured.
The brain is a computer...Different approach:
-Computers are only capable of deduction
-The brain is a computer
-Therefore the brain is only capable of deduction
@U!The brain is a computer...
LOL!!!!
And, consequently, as well as naturally, evolution.More like the computer is a product of man
Well... that's true, but Nintendo made the Wii backwards compatible. How'ja know God didn't?I agree, that it is an iteration of nature, all manufactured goods are, but it is not, nor will ever be as intricately complex as the real thing
You've a lot of (ungrounded) faith in that digital, electrical mechanism stored up in that bone bowl of yours don't you?that being the natural source, which in this case would be the human brain.
It is. If you disagree, you're wrong. It really truly is that simple. It's not an analogy, it's fucking plain truth: Brain = Computer.
And, consequently, as well as naturally, evolution.
Again I refer you to the distinction between causal reasons and logical reasons. I think that you are conflating the two.There is nothing non-deterministic in our brains; how then, could they generate "mutations" or anything like that?
Again I refer you to the distinction between causal reasons and logical reasons. I think that you are conflating the two.
I have. In another thread. How about, instead, you research my proposition.Lol proof by assertion, try justifying yourself just a little bit
Well that's not far from idiotic. If I'm right, regardless of whether or not I've justified myself, I'm still right.statements like this piss me off.
Are you? I'm goddamn right. Look it up if you don't believe me, but don't try to shove off a bunch of proofing responsibilities on to me. If you wanna know the truth, you'll hear what I have to say, and check to see if it's true. If it's not, then come back and tell me I'm wrong."Its plain fucking truth", wow, don't you wish it was that easy for every argument? Try not saying that ever again please, it will do you alot of good. "Its not an analogy", really.. cmon, you're not that stupid are you?
Did I?Computer ~(similar to, not equal) Brain. Why? Because we made it that way, but it will never possess certain attributes that a Brain has so you can never call it a true brain.
Everything in the brain is done by digital logic. You're confusing conscious reasoning with specific minute synapse reaction.Computers possess the logical/mathematical/data processing aspects of the brain but not much else
Living material? Do you think the molecules in a brain have different qualities of those in a computer? It's all electrons and protons. So a brain biodegreades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life. If we had silicone based life forms, we'd have to worry about our semiconductors being eaten too.Also that whole thing about a Brain being made of Living material while a Computer is made of Non-Living material does not allow you to state them as Equal.
And just where do you think we got our fuel from? It had to come from somewhere -- think: Womb. Womb is a factory, which fills up the battery charge.Also, brains require fuel, energy from what we eat, and this we can obtain for ourselves (given that we are not in infant stage, its only fair to not bring that up because computers are never in an infant stage). Computers cannot operate like that, they require electricity that they cannot obtain for themselves, sure we can slap a solar panel on it or something like that, but it Initially has no fuel
So because a computer isn't equipped with a billion years of self-repair functions, it can't share a verb?we have to initially give it its fuel (then depending on the computer it may be able to get power for itself after its already up and running). Brains also develop over time, they grow and change.
That we know of currently. But actually, if you know anything about physics, you know that there is a way to restart a brain, we just haven't figured out precisely how to do it, probably because it's just really really hard/complicated.You can turn a computer on and off arbitrarily. You can only turn off a brain once (except for in extreme circumstances where doctors manage to get it back on).
PCs imitate part of a brain. The brain is a computer.Computers Imitate brains, they are not brains.
You essentially stated that Computers can be a Natural product of Evolution. Computers cannot come into existence by themselves
they are made of complex machinery that are unchanging unless we act upon them.
However, give a cell a few billion years and its amazing what it can do.