Can a computer work anything out?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John Jones, Jul 15, 2009.

  1. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
    Sudoku or a chess puzzle?

    No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
    Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
    termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
    computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
    is this? I will tell you.

    Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
    stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
    can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".

    Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
    flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
    scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
    computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.

    Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
    WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
    them so!
     
    John Jones, Jul 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    That's silly, and you know it.

    but that's hardware
     
    John Jones, Jul 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Jones

    Mr. B Guest

    Can computers work anything out?

    No. In fact, this is a very famous problem in computer science, and the
    solution is that there are some problems which a computer (at least using
    the model of a Turing machine) cannot solve, the most well known being the
    Halting Problem (the problem of determining if a given program will halt; it
    cannot be solved in general).
    Yes, a computer can, both have been demonstrated as proofs-of-concept. In
    fact, Sudoku solving is a well known contest problem, especially in contests
    of who can write the most efficient computer program.
    Yes, they do.
    Sure they do: the operation of being shut down. If you are using a PC with
    ACPI support, there is a specific sequence of instructions that cause the
    hardware to cease executing further instructions and to power off. Prior to
    ACPI, we used a sequence of instructions that caused the hardware to stop
    executing further instructions and enter the "wait" state, where it was safe
    for a human operator to power off the system.
    Yes, it is -- PC operating systems general have an "exit" system call which
    programs use to indicate that they have terminated and that it is time for
    the OS to deallocate whatever resources the program was using.
    What are you talking about?
    ....have you ever looked at a computer science textbook? Or the Church-
    Turing thesis? Or even the Wikipedia entries on computer science?
    In terms of physics, neither do humans: our actions are just undirected
    chemical reactions. Let's get real here, and note that: computers are
    machines that transition between states, and we generally configure them to
    undergo a series of transitions that end in a state (or several states in a
    particular pattern) that represents some computed value. We develop
    programming languages to make it easier to express those transitions of
    states, because it is too complex and expensive to try to define each state
    one at a time (except in certain, highly restricted cases).

    I recommend reading "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" if you want
    a decent book on computing theory and computer science.

    One final question: why did you post this in alt.atheism?

    -- B
     
    Mr. B, Jul 15, 2009
    #3
  4. Yes, they can.
    I guess you never heard about that chess match, where Garry Kasparov lost
    two out of three games to Deep Blue?
    Hi, shitforbrains! You shouldn't make it so painfully obvious that you know
    nothing at all about computers.
     
    Lord Vetinari, Jul 15, 2009
    #4
  5. John Jones

    Tapestry Guest

    There is actually a little more to that story.

    First off, the conditions of the match.

    The computer selected several moves, and a group of people
    decided which one to utilize.

    Secondly, gary beat the computer in the first game and then
    told them how to improve the computer.
     
    Tapestry, Jul 15, 2009
    #5
  6. There is actually a little more to that story.

    First off, the conditions of the match.

    The computer selected several moves, and a group of people
    decided which one to utilize.

    Secondly, gary beat the computer in the first game and then
    told them how to improve the computer.
    ****************************************************

    Heheheh....I never paid all that much attention to it. I can play chess
    reasonably well (I was in the chess club in high school), but I don't enjoy
    the game enough...it's just not my bag.
     
    Lord Vetinari, Jul 15, 2009
    #6
  7. Unless it has a program in it that can solve the puzzles you throw at it,
    no.

    Without programming, a computer is nothing more than a paper weight.
     
    Jeff Strickland, Jul 15, 2009
    #7
  8. John Jones

    haiku jones Guest

    Except there is an entire field, called "genetic programming" or
    "genetic algorithms" -- modeled after biological evolution --
    in which there is no human involvement, other than to
    say "this program (which nobody wrote) works better
    than that program (which nobody wrote) to accomplish
    task X"

    You start with completely random batches of computer
    commands, and -- for those that run at all; most
    will not -- and see which might go a tiny step
    towards your goal. You keep only the best
    of the best. Then you "breed" them, exchanging
    sections of code between the survivors, and
    you may throw in some random "mutations" as
    well.

    Rinse. Repeat, approximately one zillion
    times.

    Some very sophisticated programs -- e.g: designing
    turbine blades for jet engines -- have been
    produced by this approach.

    More examples of applications at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms#Applications

    Haiku Jones
     
    haiku jones, Jul 16, 2009
    #8
  9. John Jones

    LudovicoVan Guest

    On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
    whole thing to "work".
    YEAH, but use an UNTIL there, OTHERWISE it's trash culture.

    -LV
     
    LudovicoVan, Jul 16, 2009
    #9
  10. John Jones

    LudovicoVan Guest

    In fact, I find interesting that in the formal description of a Turing
    machine, the STOP is a (sort of?) meta-command. Maybe someone could
    elaborate on this: the status of the STOP instruction w.r.t. the
    specification of a Turing machine?

    -LV
     
    LudovicoVan, Jul 16, 2009
    #10
  11. John Jones

    Immortalist Guest

    Do you mean computers as they are now or do you mean all computers at
    all times in the future evolution of information processing devices?
    If the later then humans have no goals or intentionality? Maybe you
    should produce a genuine case of information processing with a goal,
    as animals and humans do it, as a standard which you can judge against
    current information processing devices.
     
    Immortalist, Jul 16, 2009
    #11
  12. John Jones

    Richo Guest

    Is there any end of subjects that you know absolutely nothing about?
    Your ignorance is astoundingly broad and deep.

    Mark.
     
    Richo, Jul 16, 2009
    #12
  13. John Jones

    Davej Guest

    Here's an idea -- stop blathering nonsense when you are completely
    ignorant of a topic.
     
    Davej, Jul 16, 2009
    #13
  14. John Jones

    Errol Guest

    Not strictly true. Computers have buffers and pipes for instructions
    and operands. Some computers preload the next instruction or even
    predict it. When the buffers are flushed is more like a last stop or
    termination. Some computers multithread several programs at the same
    time for efficiency. This is analogous to watching tv and reading a
    book at the same time.
     
    Errol, Jul 16, 2009
    #14
  15. John Jones

    ZerkonXXXX Guest

    Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
    your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.

    The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
    intent.

    Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
    the intention to 'make' (etc)?

    If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used with
    intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make' noise and
    'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a person is
    using the hammer, not the hammer itself.
     
    ZerkonXXXX, Jul 16, 2009
    #15
  16. John Jones

    Marshall Guest

    I dispute the claim that JJ employs words. A sequence
    of letters isn't a word; a set of flowers isn't a bouquet.
    These forms do not arise as a summation of the individual
    properties of the set. I am certain he himself would agree.


    Marshall
     
    Marshall, Jul 16, 2009
    #16
  17. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

     
    John Jones, Jul 16, 2009
    #17
  18. John Jones

    Sargon Guest

    How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
    conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
    that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
    reasoning is valid.
    Yes but this seems like a tautology. That is, any purposeful act is
    intentional, and any intentional act is purposeful. I am not ready to
    claim the words mean the same thing. Give an example of an intentional
    act that is not a purposeful act, or a purposeful act which is not an
    intentional act.
    I do not understand this example.Hammers have a purpose, but do not
    "act" with purpose or intention. This is an interesting question. Are
    the two words/concepts synonymous?
     
    Sargon, Jul 16, 2009
    #18
  19. John Jones

    Ghod Dhammit Guest

    [snip]
    Well, there ya go! You probably ought to have said, "D'oh!", though.
     
    Ghod Dhammit, Jul 17, 2009
    #19
  20. John Jones

    John Jones Guest

    Are you that twat from altatheisst
     
    John Jones, Jul 19, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.