On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:13:56 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>CC>This is like someone arguing, in 1910, that the fact that adding machines
>>>can't play chess is evidence that "the a basic AI assumption that humans are
>>>just machines is on the wrong track."
>SJ>Well the fact is that even supercomputers cannot play chess *at all*.
CC>That's odd, since they have beaten Kasparov (or was it Karpov?).
Kasparov played Deeper Blue, but Deeper Blue did not play Kasparov, any
more than a the TV camera which recorded the event saw it. Big Blue did
not "beat" Kasparov. This is anthropomorphic language. Big Blue didn't
know that Kasparov had lost. Big Blue was just a machine following a set
of rules, like a washing machine follows a washing machine program. Even
this is anthropomorphic language. Machines don't even *follow* a set of
rules. It is probably impossible to speak of machines except
anthropomorphically. But we should not confuse the language we are
forced to use, with the reality we are trying to describe.
[...]
>SJ>I agree with Searle (I think it is him) who argued that such
>>computers are not playing chess at all. They are *simulating*
>>playing chess, like a flight simulator simulates flying.
CC>Next, you'll be saying that calculators don't *calculate* at all; they only
>*simulate* calculating.
Of course all that calculators do is simulate calculating! Mechanical and
electronic calculators follow a set of human rules, to *simulate* processes
in human minds. They don't carry out the *same* processes calculating
processes in the human mind.
CC>This is such an obviously circular position that
>even *I* am surprised that you use it. minds.
No. It's the *true* position. It is a *delusion* if materialists think that
calculating machines are actually doing the same thing that humans are
doing.
Machines can *simulating* human thinking, eyes, ears, but they are not
really thinking, seeing, and hearing. A microphone takes in a human voice
signal, converts to electrical impulses, the reconverts it to what sounds just
like the human voice in a loudspeaker. But the loudspeaker is not really
speaking-it is *simulating* human speaking.
CC>It's true that they are not playing
>chess in the same sense that humans do. So what? That's irrelevant.
What chess computers are doing is so different from what humans are
doing that it cannot even be called the same thing, as chess master and
philosopher Tim McGrew points out:
"Deeper Blue is running on a machine capable of evaluating 200 million
nodes per second. A top grandmaster, at a very generous estimate, can
visualize and evaluate perhaps as many as a hundred different possibilities
in a minute of concentrated thought. This is a speed difference of eight
orders of magnitude, greater than the relative speed gap between the most
advanced tactical fighter jet and the average inchworm. Clearly, something
is going on in the human grandmaster's mind that is not only radically
different from what Deeper Blue's program does, but also inconceivably
more efficient. In view of the incredible complexity of chess and the limited
speed of the human mind, it is a kind of computational miracle that humans
can play chess at all."(McGrew T., "The Simulation of Expertise: Deeper
Blue and the Riddle of Cognition", Origins & Design, Access Research
Network, Vol. 19, No. 1, Summer 1998, pp7-11.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od191/deeperblue191.htm)
Personally I, along with a lot of strong chessplayers who studied the
games, think that Kasparov played well below his best and was unnerved
by playing a machine. I believe that Kasparov would have won a rematch
and IBM presumably thought so too, because they refused a rematch and
put Deeper Blue to another use.
BTW chess is about the only difficult game that computers can play (using
that anthropomorphic word for convenience). They can't play well, if at all,
bridge, for example.
CC>The
>*fact* is that they can produce better chess-game results than 99.999
>percent of the human population.
Now this is a different matter. I don't deny that computers "can
produce...chess-game results", any more than I deny that loudspeakers
produce human voice results.
And as for them "produce better chess-game results than 99.999 percent of
the human population", this is misleading.
First, probably 90% of the human population cannot chess at all.
Second, of those 10% of humans who can play chess, probably only 2%
have any idea of chess theory, which enormously enhances one's strength.
Chess theory was only discovered in the last 200 years. And computers are
programmed with a lot of chess theory, when it was found early on that
sheer calculating power was not enough. This is incidentally a big factor in
Big Blue's success-it was programmed with the deepest collection of chess
theory ever.
Third, computers electronic circuitry is thousands, if not millions of times
faster than human's nervous circuity. If a computer was slowed down to a
human's speed, or if the human could spend a proportionately longer time
on each move, then my bet would be on the human.
A test of this is my computer program GNUchess. When I first played it on
my old 386/20Mhz I could beat it easily, even at higher levels, but not at
the highest level. But when I got a 486/33Mhz I could still beat it more
often than not, but only on the lowest level. Now that I have a
Pentium/200Mhz, I hardly ever beat it, even on the lowest level.
CC>If you don't want to call it "playing
>chess," you are free to adopt your own terms for it, but it doesn't change
>the *facts*. level.
See above. The "facts" are *overwhelming* that Deeper Blue was not
doing anything remotely like what Kasparov was doing. It's like saying that
if: 100,000,000 C = 10 H then C = H!
CC>If you think it does, then why don't you challenge the Deep
>Blue people to play against their machine and see how well you do? The
>*fact* is that you will probably be wiped out in every game
Of *course* I would be "wiped out in every game"! But slow Deeper Blue
down to human neuron speed and remove its encyclopedic database of
chess theory, and I am confident that I would beat Deeper Blue every time!
CC>especially if
>your reasoning in chess is like it is on evolution theory.
Isn't it interesting how Chris cannot maintain an argument for any length of
time, before he has to start making gratuitous ad hominems? This tells me
that deep down he realises his arguments are weak!
But Chris shoots himself in the foot here. I was City of Perth (Western
Australia's State capital) champion for 2 years running (1964-1965), and
the highest rated player in the State (2000+), before I gave up chess in
1966, so presumably there can't be too much wrong with my "reasoning"
powers!
CC>Also, will you soon start telling us that clocks don't keep time?
Clocks "keep time" by *simulating* the earth turning on its axis every 24
hours.
CC>If any or all of these things are only simulations, please tell us in what
>*relevant* sense they differ from the real thing?
I note Chris' "relevant" condition! No doubt when I answer, he will say its
not "relevant". Well, here goes! The online Webster's Dictionary defines
"simulation" as:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: simulation
Pronunciation: "sim-y&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English simulacion, from Middle French, from Latin simulation-,
simulatio, from simulare
Date: 14th century
1 : the act or process of simulating
2 : a sham object : COUNTERFEIT
3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by
means of the functioning of another <a computer simulation of an industrial process>
b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of
a simulating device
[...]
c 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition 3a above, would cover Chris's three examples of: 1. chess-
playing computers; 2. calculators; and 3. clocks. Each of these is an
"imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by
means of the functioning of another":
1. chessplaying computers imitatively represent the functioning of one
system (the human chessplayer's mind) by means of the functioning of
another (electronic circuitry and storage) systems;
2. calculators imitatively represent the functioning of one process (human
mathematical calculation) by means of the functioning of another
(mechanical analogue or electronic digital) processes; and
3. clocks, imitatively represent the functioning of one system (the Earth
turning on its axis) by means of the functioning of another (mechanical
analogue or electronic digital) systems;
CC>How do you know you are
>playing chess when you do, and that the computer *isn't* playing chess?
Simple. I *know* I am playing chess, but the computer doesn't know it is
playing chess. Kasparov was nervous playing Deeper Blue, and it showed
in his play. I would be nervous playing Kasparov and it would show in my
play (I have played two different Grandmasters in simultaneous matches
and it showed in my weaker than usual play). But Deeper Blue's play was
not affected in the slightest by playing Kasparov.
CC>Is it a matter of being conscious? Fine. Since much of human chess playing is
>done subconsciously, I suppose that would mean that *humans* are only
>playing chess in some very trivial sense, and only to the extent that they
>are *consciously* examining each alternative sequence in detail, rather than
>relying on memory and subconscious processes.
Where does Chris get his idea that "much of human chess playing is done
subconsciously"? Chess playing is a highly conscious-level activity
involving analytical thinking and memory. There may be a subconscious
component in the intuitive recognition of different types of positions and
first good moves, but this is subordinated to the concrete higher level
analysis of moves and countermoves, and the conscious remembering of
opening book variations.
>CC>More likely, it's evidence that the
>>>machines aren't well-programmed for this task. What will you say if, in a
>>>few years, machines are able to recognize faces easily?
>SJ>I would say that they are not recognising faces at all. They are
>>*simulating* recognising faces. Only when they *know* they are recognising faces
>>will I admit that computers are *really* recognising faces.
>CC>Ah, but *then* you'll have the perfect *evasion* of reality all ready: They
>won't really *know* they are recognizing faces; they will only be
>*simulating* knowing that they are recognizing faces.
No. It is *Chris* who is evading reality. Unless machines *know* they are
recognising faces, they are not really *recognising* faces, any more than a
loudspeaker is really speaking.
At the moment machines cannot even recognise that it *is* a face. There
are 6 billion unique human faces on this Earth. Each has hundreds, if not
thousands of skeletal, muscular, and skin features. Each can be seen from a
range of angles spanning 180 degrees. Humans usually have little trouble
recognising faces, except maybe identical twins, but even they can be told
apart after one gets to know them better (I know two pairs). For all this to
be digitised and implemented in a universally reliable, economically feasible
face-recognition system, which can cope with beard trims and cosmetics,
might be *forever* beyond commercial reality, without even considering
the problem of *conscious* recognition.'
CC>This is a nice but *very* general escape, since it can be applied to
>*anything*, including all human activity.
See above. What Chris calls an "escape" I call the *real world*. From my
perspective, and that of the vast majority of mankind, it is the
*materialists* like Chris who are in the grip of a self-delusory philosophy
which puts them out of touch with reality.
I have been hearing about the advent of these thinking machines for the last
30 years and they are still not here! On Chris' materialistic philosophy any
machine should be conscious, from a thermostat to a computer. And Big
Blue should be more conscious than a thermostat. Well Big Blue is millions
of times more complex than a thermostat and it still shows no sign of
consciousness.
CC>Well, guess what? When a baby first recognizes a face, *it* doesn't know
>it's recognizing faces, *either*. Are you going to claim that babies *don't*
>recognize faces, that they are only *simulating* recognizing faces?
How does Chris know that "a baby...doesn't know it's recognizing faces"?
My understanding is that babies are now thought to be much more aware
than was originally thought.
CC>If a computer can reliably pick a specific randomly-selected face out of a
>random selection of faces, as does a human, on what grounds can you say that
>it doesn't recognize faces?
When Chris has evidence that a computer can: 1. reliably pick out it *is* a
face, then we can talk about the next step as to when they will be able to 2.
simulate recognising face; and then, and only then, we can talk about when
they will be able to 3. *know* they are recognising faces.
But somehow I don't think that Chris and I are going to be around when 3.
or maybe even 2. happens!
CC>I don't think you know what you are talking about; you are only *simulating*
>knowing what you are talking about. For all we know, you only *simulated*
>playing chess. How would we know? Just as you only *simulate* knowing
>evolutionary theory (and not too well), *everyone* could be only
>*simulating* whatever it is they appear to be doing. Writers could be only
>*simulating* writing. Computer programmers, artists, music composers, and so
>on might only be *simulating* their respective activities, given your
>approach.
No. See above.
>SJ>What will Chris say if, in a few years, machines are *still* not able to
>>recognize faces easily?
>CC>Well, since computers *are* used for human identification processes, and
>since the software for doing so is getting better and better (sometimes
>without further human intervention), I'd say my chances are pretty good that
>they *will* be able to do this, even if we have to *copy* the part of the
>brain that does this into a computer form.
There is no evidence this would work. The only brains which we know
work like brains are the flesh and blood sort.
CC>I will say, also, that you are *still* offering a "God of the ever-dwindling
>gaps."
This "God of the ever-dwindling gaps" is a materialistic myth, or should I
say, since we are talking about computers, vapour-ware!
The "gaps" are still there between: 1) non-being and being; 2) non-life and
life; 2) less complex life and more complex life ; 3) non-consciousness and
consciousness; 4) consciousness and human consciousness; and there is no
immediate likelihood they are going to be closed.
CC>And, I would ask, "*Why* can't it recognize faces well?" I would ask, "What
>aspect of human face recognition is missing?"
See above.
CC>Finally, I would point out that human face recognition facility is evidence
>of *evolution*, not a designer.
This is a false antithesis. A designer can execute his design through a long
drawn out historical `evolutionary' process:
"I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted
to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural
evolutionary process instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p14)
CC>Facial recognition is important to a species
>that communicates largely by facial activity, and upon whose beneficence
>*baby* humans depend. Since an infant cannot understand spoken conceptual
>language as such, it must make do with whatever information can be
>genetically encoded in a generally-useful way. Humans who *can't* recognize
>human faces and get a lot of information from doing so tend to get killed
>and tend to have relationship problems that will keep them from passing on
>their un-social genes.
Well all Chris needs to do is send to the scrap heap those computers which
are not so good at face recognition and in no time at all he will have his
face recognition system!
This is just Darwinist story telling:
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another,
and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection.
But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them
to the test" (Patterson C., letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D.,
"Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", 1988, p89)
There is no evidence that human face recognition really arose like this, or
even *could* arise like this . Such a process might explain why those
without face-recognition did not survive, but it does not explain the origin
of face-recognition itself. There is plenty of evidence for negative natural
selection (ie. eliminating the fit) but hardly any for positive natural selection
(ie. creating the fit in the first place):
"From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinian selection
represents a process whereby advantageous mutants spread through the
species. Considering their great importance in evolution, it is perhaps
surprising that well-established cases are so scarce; for example, industrial
melanisms in moths and increases of DDT resistance in insects are
constantly being cited. On the other hand, examples showing that negative
selection is at work to eliminate variants produced by mutation abound."
(Kimura M., "Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution," The Johns
Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1976, p260)
CC>All designer theory can say about this facility is: "Well, the designer
>chose for it to be that way." That's designer theory's necessary answer to
>*every* question of this sort, because, lacking any *actual* evidence of a
>designer, there is nothing else that *can* be said without going *beyond*
>designer theory.
I had previously posted the following table with three lines of "evidence of
a Designer" (best read with monospaced font):
===================================================================
=
A Comparison of Intelligent Design Theory with Anti-Design Theory
Copyright (c) 1999, Stephen E. Jones
(Note: this table is under construction. Comments
and criticisms welcome - to sejones@iinet.net.au)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Predictions Design Anti- Comments
Theory Design
Theory*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Living things would
appear to be designed Yes No Even opponents of Design
like Dawkins [1] and Crick [2] admit
that living things appear to be
designed.
2. Universe would appear Yes No Modern science has revealed
to be designed to the universe appears to be
support life highly fine-tuned to support
life.
3. Universe and man's Yes No Even non-supporters of
mind would appear to be Design have called this "the
co-designed so that man unreasonable effectiveness
can understand the of mathematics." [3]
underlying mathematical
laws of the universe
References:
[1] "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1).
[2] "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery", [1988], Penguin Books: London,
1990, reprint, p138)
[3] "It is hard to avoid the impression that a miracle is at work here...The
miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the
formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither
understand nor deserve." (Wigner E.P, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness
of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences", Communications on Pure and
Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, 1960, pp1-14, in Denton M.J., "Nature's
Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe", The
Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp259-260)
===================================================================
This shows that Chris's denial that there is any evidence of design springs
from philosophical prejudice not from the facts!
CC>In fact, if it were found that humans were especially *bad*
>at face recognition, *that* would suggest that evolution was false, just as
>finding that tigers had no claws, no sharp teeth, that they had an extremely
>strong and distinctive odor, and that they always tried to sneak up on their
>prey from upwind while making horrendous screaming noises would tend to
>suggest that evolution was false.
See above. Evolution is not the antithesis of design, if by "evolution" is
simply mean a long-drawn out historical process. A Designer could work
through such a process.
What the antithesis of design is, is *non*-Design.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another, and equally important, explanation for Darwin's success as the
propounder of evolution is to be found in his equivocation on the central
issue of selection versus direction. The issue had long been recognized as
cardinal in any theory. Those who had taken either side unequivocally,
whether that of Lamarck or of his opponents, had failed, though their
failure was political. But Darwin confused the alternatives on all possible
occasions. The confusion helped greatly in dealing with untrained
opponents who did not notice the blurring of the issue. Darwin's success
makes his choice in this dilemma seem deliberate and disingenuous. But it
was no doubt unconscious, like most of his more important reasonings."
(Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol.
201, May 1959, p64)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------