3 ms·
You argue that because it is impossible for an algorithm to do some tasks perfectly, and humans can do "quite a decent job at these tasks," thus human minds are
by nohat 7y ago
You argue that because it is impossible for an algorithm to do some tasks perfectly, and humans can do "quite a decent job at these tasks," thus human minds are doing something beyond computation. Firstly this just doesn't logically follow. Perfection is completely different from "okay." Secondly it's far from clear that humans do any better than machines on many of these tasks, which would imply the opposite according to your argument.
Your greater than mere computation mind can makes huge bucks solving any problem since it can see if a program halts. Lets factor out some large primes and crack RSA. Just make a program that would halt if the answer is less than a certain value, then do binary search. A bit tedious, but surely huge piles of money are motivating. I'd do it myself but my mind seems to be malfunctioning.
Basically this is just a silly claim which is a shame because the first half of your response was pretty good.
- yters 7y agoSure perfection is different from okay, but the human 'okay' is also much much beyond what we can do algorithmically, at least as far as we've discovered. That is at least evidence in favor of the uncomputable mind. And you might be correct that a human in the loop approach could crack RSA better than algorithmic approach, I've given it a shot in the past. There was a slight correlation of better answers with human involvement. Not entirely unexpected since our method of generating RSA primes has to be computable in a tractable time frame, so there is probably some exploitable regularity in the generation scheme that a super computational process could assist in identifying.