3 ms·
How do you know that? Do you have an example program and all its inputs where we cannot in principle determine if it halts? Many things are non-algorithmic, an
by theodorejb 4y ago
How do you know that? Do you have an example program and all its inputs where we cannot in principle determine if it halts?
Many things are non-algorithmic, and thus cannot be done by a computer, yet we can do them (e.g. love someone, enjoy the beauty of a sunset, experience joy or sadness, etc).
- NLPaep 4y agoThose are just specific particles floating around the brain
- goatlover 4y agoWhat would those specific particles be, then? Sounds like a crude abstraction.
- nuancebydefault 4y agoThey said - there is no evidence. The reply hence is not supposed to be - how do you know that. The proposition begs for a counter example, in this case an evidence. Simply saying - love is non algorithmic - is not evidence, it is just another proposition that has not been proven, so it brings us no closer to an answer i am afraid.
- theodorejb 4y agoMy question was in response to the statement "Neither a human can solve the halting problem." There's an interesting article/podcast here about what computers can't do: https://mindmatters.ai/2020/08/six-limitations-of-artificial-intelligence-as-we-know-it/ https://mindmatters.ai/2020/08/six-limitations-of-artificial....
- TchoBeer 4y agoI can throw a ton of algorithms that no human alive can hope to decide whether they halt or not. Human minds aren't inherently good at solving halting problems and I see no reason to suggest that they can even decide whether all turing machines with number of states, say, below the number of particles in the observable universe, very much less all possible computers. Moreover, are you sure that e.g. loving people in non-algorithmic? We can already make chatbots which pretty convincingly act as if they love people. Sure, they don't actually love anyone, they just generate text, but then, what would it mean for a system or even a human to "actually" love someone?
- Jeff_Brown 4y agoA good example was given earlier -- will a program that searches for counterexamples to the Collatz Conjecture halt?
- theodorejb 4y agoWhen mathematicians solve the Collatz Conjecture then we'll know. This will likely require creativity and thoughtful reasoning, which are non-algorithmic and can't be accomplished by computers.
- Jeff_Brown 4y ago> creativity and thoughtful reasoning, which are non-algorithmic and can't be accomplished by computers. Maybe. When computers solve it then we'll know.
- theodorejb 4y agoWe may use computers as a tool to help us solve it, but nonetheless it takes a conscious mind to understand the conjecture and come up with rational ways to reach the solution.
- flangola7 4y agoHuman minds are ultimately just algorithms running on a wetware computer. Every problem that humans have ever solved is by definition an algorithmic problem.
- theodorejb 4y agoOh? What algorithm was executed to discover the laws of planetary motion, or write The Lord of the Rings, or the programs for training the GPT-4 model, for that matter? I'm not convinced that human creativity, ingenuity, and understanding (among other traits) can be reduced to algorithms running on a computer.