Futurists/Ray Kurzweil

[Borodog]

I think I said several times that I did not mean that your brain is actually doing complex mathematics. But it is doing some algorithm that must be an approximation of complex mathematics, because it arrives at the correct results. And then you kept repeatedly denying that the brain does calculations. It was frustrating.

And the last time I checked, when you catch a ball, your brain tells your hand to do it, and to do this your brain has to have a plan ahead of time how to accomplish this. That involves prediction. I don't care what the mechanisms are, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's mostly a matter of "tracking algorithms" or lookup tables or visual extrapolation or a rapid series of guesses and corrections, or any other algorithm. All of them involve prediction and calculation. If you think you can catch a ball without your brain predicting where it's going to be, try catching it blindfolded.

If you are now agreeing that the brain does calculations, then we have no problem, as that is all I have ever meant to claim. You can approximate extemely complex calculations with very, very simple calculations, and if that's what the brain is doing, then more power to it, because it's often the best way to go (e.g. finite differencing complex differential equations, not that I think that's how your brain does it).

Apologies for the frustration. And there was certainly no intention to set up a strawman.

[Borodog]

One last stab at making my position here clear.

To catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. This is undeniable, because the differential equations do in fact describe the path of the ball. They must, or they never would have been developed. Because these complex differential equations describe the path of the ball, we may as well say that the ball itself is solving these equations in its flight. That's why we call them "governing" equations, the equations don't just describe the flight, they describe the flight because they govern the flight. In other words, mathematical descriptions are useful because the world appears to follow the governing equations.

So to catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. HOWEVER, what algorithms or techniques your brain uses to accomplish this, is not my concern. Your brain is free to use as simple an algorithm as it can get away with. If that involves "tracking algorithms" or "continuous retinal arcs" or anything else is fine by me. That doesn't change the fact that the end result is that you have caught the ball, which means that you have solved a set of complex differential equations, whether you know it or not.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
One last stab at making my position here clear.

To catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. This is undeniable, because the differential equations do in fact describe the path of the ball. They must, or they never would have been developed. Because these complex differential equations describe the path of the ball, we may as well say that the ball itself is solving these equations in its flight. That's why we call them "governing" equations, the equations don't just describe the flight, they describe the flight because they govern the flight. In other words, mathematical descriptions are useful because the world appears to follow the governing equations.

So to catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. HOWEVER, what algorithms or techniques your brain uses to accomplish this, is not my concern. Your brain is free to use as simple an algorithm as it can get away with. If that involves "tracking algorithms" or "continuous retinal arcs" or anything else is fine by me. That doesn't change the fact that the end result is that you have caught the ball, which means that you have solved a set of complex differential equations, whether you know it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reviving this old thread because Borodog amuses me. I think the physics PhD is rotting your brain [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Here's what you need to understand: The kind of processing involved in catching/throwing a ball is NOT about executing algorithms. It's about matching the current situation with a huge number of previous situations and producing an appropriate response, using the hardware changes that occurred during previous learning experiences.

Think back to when you were a kid and were trying to learn to catch a ball, or bounce a ball, or ski, or rollerblade. How badly did you suck at it? Even after years of intensive training in the form of walking, moving, and observing objects in your world, you don't have the basic algorithms in place to catch a ball with any skill. What does this tell you about the value of algorithms in ball catching? It requires thousands of repetition of a specific activity to gain basic competence in it, to allow your brain hardware to reorganize itself to respond skilfully to a thrown ball. It requires tens of thousands to millions more repetitions to be able to do with expertise.

Why are some people vastly better at catching a ball than others? All undamaged brains can process language with incredible skill, a task vastly more complicated and processor intensive than finding a ball's trajectory via an algorithm. The likely conclusion is that the brain doesn't use an algorithm for either language or for catching or throwing a ball. It uses learned experience hardwired in the architecture itself.

As for throwing a ball - no, that doesn't involve a physics algorithms either. It's about perceiving distance (something we have millions upon millions of units of experience doing) with a vast number of experiences of throwing - and finding the right one. If any calculations go on, they are a distant second to the main mechanism.

[Dane S]

This thread is awesome. Tech singularity is a very interesting thought even if it's not very plausible in the near term.

Does anyone disagree that a tech singularity is inevitable at SOME point if the human species continues to exist and technology continues to progress? Do you think it will be a good or bad event for humanity?

The biggest hole in Kurzweil's logic seems to me his thoughts on paradigms... he relies on these to continue exponential technology growth on pace through major barriers, BUT isn't the whole point of a paradigm shift that it will be sweeping and come out of NOWHERE (i.e. totally unpredictable in its consequences)? Since these shifts change the face of the world SO drastically, it's almost like any one of these might as well be a singularity when we consider our complete inability to look beyond them (with some Leonardo DaVinci type of guys sometimes being exceptions)> Does my thinking make sense to anyone?

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest hole in Kurzweil's logic seems to me his thoughts on paradigms... he relies on these to continue exponential technology growth on pace through major barriers, BUT isn't the whole point of a paradigm shift that it will be sweeping and come out of NOWHERE (i.e. totally unpredictable in its consequences)? Since these shifts change the face of the world SO drastically, it's almost like any one of these might as well be a singularity when we consider our complete inability to look beyond them (with some Leonardo DaVinci type of guys sometimes being exceptions)> Does my thinking make sense to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of precident for exponential growth to continue through multiple paradigms. The classic example is computing power. Mechanical computation, then vacuum tube technology, then individual transistors, then integrated circuits. Each time the old paradigm hit a limit, pressure was created to find a new paradigm, and the exponential growth continued.

[Dane S]

Sure, but how do you know what it's heading towards? The paradigm shifts change the way humans view everything right? I'm talking more about the larger shifts like automobiles, PCs, internet than vacuum tubes and transistors. I don't see how anyone would be able to make predictions considering the massive unpredictable effects of these shifts. Sure growth can continue (unless something unforeseen stops it) but who the hell can say what direction we will "grow" in? In 100 years perhaps primitivism will be all the rage and "growth" will mean reorganizing human society to resemble pre-Columbus America. See what I'm saying? It seems like Kurzweil is prejudiced towards some kind of technoutopia being the ultimate destination but I see no reason why this should be the case over an infinite number of alternative scenarios.

Could Kurzweil's fallacy be assigning a goal to all evolution when really it's about adaptation, not progress in any particular direction? Seems like a very religious viewpoint actually the more I think about it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone disagree that a tech singularity is inevitable at SOME point if the human species continues to exist and technology continues to progress? Do you think it will be a good or bad event for humanity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given continued exponential growth, there will come a time when unaugmented humans can't even keep track. So I don't disagree. And I definitely consider it a good thing, although I think the upheavals on the way there may be painful.

But there are three problems. First, assuming that a trend will continue infinitely seems unjustified. Second, it won't happen in the near future, but probably after we'll all dead. Third, as you pointed out, we can't make any concrete predictions about the specific nature of this singularity. The reality might be something nobody can imagine today.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One last stab at making my position here clear.

To catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. This is undeniable, because the differential equations do in fact describe the path of the ball. They must, or they never would have been developed. Because these complex differential equations describe the path of the ball, we may as well say that the ball itself is solving these equations in its flight. That's why we call them "governing" equations, the equations don't just describe the flight, they describe the flight because they govern the flight. In other words, mathematical descriptions are useful because the world appears to follow the governing equations.

So to catch a ball, complex differential equations must be solved. HOWEVER, what algorithms or techniques your brain uses to accomplish this, is not my concern. Your brain is free to use as simple an algorithm as it can get away with. If that involves "tracking algorithms" or "continuous retinal arcs" or anything else is fine by me. That doesn't change the fact that the end result is that you have caught the ball, which means that you have solved a set of complex differential equations, whether you know it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reviving this old thread because Borodog amuses me. I think the physics PhD is rotting your brain [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Here's what you need to understand: The kind of processing involved in catching/throwing a ball is NOT about executing algorithms. It's about matching the current situation with a huge number of previous situations and producing an appropriate response, using the hardware changes that occurred during previous learning experiences.

Think back to when you were a kid and were trying to learn to catch a ball, or bounce a ball, or ski, or rollerblade. How badly did you suck at it? Even after years of intensive training in the form of walking, moving, and observing objects in your world, you don't have the basic algorithms in place to catch a ball with any skill. What does this tell you about the value of algorithms in ball catching? It requires thousands of repetition of a specific activity to gain basic competence in it, to allow your brain hardware to reorganize itself to respond skilfully to a thrown ball. It requires tens of thousands to millions more repetitions to be able to do with expertise.

Why are some people vastly better at catching a ball than others? All undamaged brains can process language with incredible skill, a task vastly more complicated and processor intensive than finding a ball's trajectory via an algorithm. The likely conclusion is that the brain doesn't use an algorithm for either language or for catching or throwing a ball. It uses learned experience hardwired in the architecture itself.

As for throwing a ball - no, that doesn't involve a physics algorithms either. It's about perceiving distance (something we have millions upon millions of units of experience doing) with a vast number of experiences of throwing - and finding the right one. If any calculations go on, they are a distant second to the main mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump to highlight my complete ownage of Borodog, and because we've got a thread going on about this right now.