X-Message-Number: 8506
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:00:35 -0400
From: "John P. Pietrzak" <>
Subject: Computers & Humans
References: <>

Hi, just wanted to note a few things:

Thomas Donaldson wrote:
> First of all, with biotechnology I think the split between bio- and
> (say) electronic technology becomes meaningless. The crucial issue
> in computer playing of various intellectual games (chess, go, etc)
> is not the substrate on which the computing is performed but the
> organization of the computer.

In fact, it's even less than that.  All "digital" computers are based
upon the concept of the "switch".  (This includes practically every
machine made today, the analog computer has just about died out.)  The
_only_ thing a computer does is flip switches.  Given sufficient time,
any human can perform exactly the same program that any computer does,
by basically flipping the appropriate switches at the appropriate
times.

Which leads me to:
> Second, the mode in which computers work differs from that in which
> human beings work --- we are organized differently.

Not entirely true.  Human computing ability is (information-
theoretically speaking) either equivalent to or a superset of modern
digital computer ability.  Every human being that is capable of
throwing a given switch when told to do so (the essence of the "Turing
Machine" concept) is able to run any program that a computer can run
(given enough time, of course).  If this wasn't true, I probably
wouldn't be able to write programs; it's gotta work on the simulation
of the machine in my head before it will work on the real machine.
(Assuming that I'm actually simulating the computer correctly.)

> [...] And yes, a sufficiently powerful computer can compute all the
> different possibilities for a chess move much better than human
> beings can.

Faster, yes.  Better?  Eventually, they'll both come up with the same
result, given the same algorithm.

> [...] Not only that, but no animal or plant has yet evolved equivalent
> computational ability to a computer: suggesting that for living in our
> environment, all those computational abilities just haven't been very
> useful.

In fact, I suspect much of the life on earth could perform Turing
equivalent calculations; you can teach mice to run a maze or choose
a particular door, you can teach tricks to dogs/dolphins/horses/etc.
Computers are really quite stupid, in fact.  (Just very, very fast.)

(BTW, this is why I believe this "Singularity" of Vernor Vinge is
total crap.  I've been working in AI for some time; it's easier to
descirbe progress in that field as following a _logarithmic_ curve
than an _exponential_ curve!)

> As for the computer, it is just a tool.

Indeed.

John

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8506