4 ms·

Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.

by nr2x 6y ago

Jtsummers 6y ago
> theories are still a purely human domain. Why do you believe that? Theories are attempts to explain the mechanism of something based on the observed data. Given data on patient symptoms and known drugs (ACE inhibitors in this case) and their effects, a computer could easily produce a theory that the disease acted like ACE inhibitors. It'd still take a human to write the program to generate these theories, but a computer could do it.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think it is a question of semantics regarding the words generate and theory. Computers cant produce theories because they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas. Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Yes, that was my intent.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas But what if the data represents ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving > Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      >> they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas >But what if the data represents ideas? Then the computer would still be generating and analyzing data, not processing ideas. >> Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. >Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc. I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese[1]. If the conscious observer is not necessary for a theory to exist, why is the computer necessary either? Certainly the phenomenon and data exist without it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
      - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic was deliberately mentioned, you might as well say "Of course a calculator app on your phone isn't _really_ doing arithmetic, the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of discovering the correct answer, in the same way that a computer can not understand compound interest". There is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >here is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate. I think the fact that a computer can execute a program to compound interest isn’t a particularly novel one or interesting idea to me. Going back to the original article, I think it was an unnecessary and incorrect anthropromorpiziation to write a computer discovered a theory of disease. Why isn’t my lazy laptop curing diseases? I think there is a lot of interesting ideas in this semantic area. Can a computer compose all possible melodies and release them into the public domain[1]. If I write a script that formulates and posts every combination of "x variable cures cancer", did the computer or I discover a theory? If no, what are the minimum requirements? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/...
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
A set of correlations identified automatically in the input data - is that a theory, or merely output data?
- glaberficken 6y ago
  Exactly what I thought. A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction Yes, you're correct. However, identifying the correlations is a necessary precondition to making a theory about them. And the automated analysis can help with that step.

Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.

by nr2x 6y ago

Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.

> theories are still a purely human domain. Why do you believe that? Theories are attempts to explain the mechanism of something based on the observed data. Given data on patient symptoms and known drugs (ACE inhibitors in this case) and their effects, a computer could easily produce a theory that the disease acted like ACE inhibitors. It'd still take a human to write the program to generate these theories, but a computer could do it.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think it is a question of semantics regarding the words generate and theory. Computers cant produce theories because they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas. Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory.
- nr2x 6y ago
  Yes, that was my intent.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas But what if the data represents ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving > Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >> they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas >But what if the data represents ideas? Then the computer would still be generating and analyzing data, not processing ideas. >> Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. >Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc. I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese[1]. If the conscious observer is not necessary for a theory to exist, why is the computer necessary either? Certainly the phenomenon and data exist without it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic was deliberately mentioned, you might as well say "Of course a calculator app on your phone isn't _really_ doing arithmetic, the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of discovering the correct answer, in the same way that a computer can not understand compound interest". There is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >here is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate. I think the fact that a computer can execute a program to compound interest isn’t a particularly novel one or interesting idea to me. Going back to the original article, I think it was an unnecessary and incorrect anthropromorpiziation to write a computer discovered a theory of disease. Why isn’t my lazy laptop curing diseases? I think there is a lot of interesting ideas in this semantic area. Can a computer compose all possible melodies and release them into the public domain[1]. If I write a script that formulates and posts every combination of "x variable cures cancer", did the computer or I discover a theory? If no, what are the minimum requirements? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/...

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

A set of correlations identified automatically in the input data - is that a theory, or merely output data?

glaberficken 6y ago
Exactly what I thought. A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction Yes, you're correct. However, identifying the correlations is a necessary precondition to making a theory about them. And the automated analysis can help with that step.