The word "seem" gets me out of that complaint. You do seem to regard the world as deterministic, I get the strong impression of that from the various threads in Spirituality touching on metaphysics you've posted in.
Then you are misunderstanding my posts. Given you now know this, that should stop you
from assuming you do under ...[text shortened]... nt was clearly not meant to be taken particularly seriously.[/quote]
Clearly it wasn't clear.
Go is in the computational class EXP. You can try alpha beta pruning, but it won't change the computational class of the problem. My statement is that no deterministic algorithm is capable of solving Go in polynomial time. I am not relying on no one having done it, I am relying on the computational class of the problem. I've got good reasons for making my statement, it is not an argument from ignorance.
Originally posted by twhitehead That depends on how the computer is programmed.
[b]No, this is the point with BQP, there is a bounded error. Consider a decision problem with a large space of possible answers. A quantum machine has a 1/3 chance of getting it wrong on any attempt. But it requires a fairly small number of runs to get the correct answer with a very high degree ...[text shortened]... tum effects are involved (beyond the fact that everything is a quantum effect 🙂 ) or necessary.
What are your reasons for thinking that brains are not able to exploit quantum mechanical effects?
Originally posted by DeepThought Go is in the computational class EXP. You can try alpha beta pruning, but it won't change the computational class of the problem. My statement is that no deterministic algorithm is capable of solving Go in polynomial time. I am not relying on no one having done it, I am relying on the computational class of the problem. I've got good reasons for making my statement, it is not an argument from ignorance.
Humans don't SOLVE Go either... I thought we were clear on that.
We PLAY Go, and we [apparently] currently do it better than current
programs that play Go, but we do not in any way SOLVE Go.
To be any kind of reasonable fair comparison we don't need computers
to solve go, merely to play it to human standards.
And you have shown us absolutely nothing to indicate that a classical
Turing Machine cannot do that.
Originally posted by DeepThought What are your reasons for thinking that brains are not able to exploit quantum mechanical effects?
What are your reasons for thinking that they are?
The neutral default position is to not believe either way and you need sufficient
evidence to move in either direction.
Given that quantum computing requires maintaining delicate quantum entanglement
and superposition states which de-cohere at the slightest provocation... Why do you
believe that it's at all plausible that such a messy warm mess as a biological brain can
sustain such states?
It seems more plausible a-priori given the above that human brains are not quantum computers.
Originally posted by googlefudge What are your reasons for thinking that they are?
The neutral default position is to not believe either way and you need sufficient
evidence to move in either direction.
Given that quantum computing requires maintaining delicate quantum entanglement
and superposition states which de-cohere at the slightest provocation... Why do you
believe th ...[text shortened]...
It seems more plausible a-priori given the above that human brains are not quantum computers.
To say nothing of the fact brains are running almost 100 degrees F, slightly above the usual quantum computer level of something like 10 degrees KELVIN.
Originally posted by DeepThought What are your reasons for thinking that brains are not able to exploit quantum mechanical effects?
As I already stated, one cannot actually separate out quantum mechanical effects from normal physics all that easily, but I'll assume you are referring to the use of quantum mechanical effects specifically for its computational advantages.
1. A total lack of evidence that they do.
2. A total lack of need for them to do so.
3. The fact that using quantum mechanical effects for computation is extremely complicated.
4. The fact that it would have no significant benefits for the human brain. Even if we do use it, it isn't the main reason for our intelligence.
Originally posted by sonhouse To say nothing of the fact brains are running almost 100 degrees F, slightly above the usual quantum computer level of something like 10 degrees KELVIN.
How's that different from the situation with chloroplasts?
Originally posted by DeepThought How's that different from the situation with chloroplasts?
Its a different quantum effect. Some quantum effects can be observed in the sun at billions of degrees. But you won't find very many quantum bits in there.
Originally posted by DeepThought Go is in the computational class EXP.
I also have to point out that if humans or computers could solve Go, there would be no competition. The player that started would win every time.
(or the player with the smallest handicap if playing with handicaps).
Not even Chess has been solved computationally.
Originally posted by twhitehead Its a different quantum effect. Some quantum effects can be observed in the sun at billions of degrees. But you won't find very many quantum bits in there.
No, you're not allowed to have your cake and eat it. I've found a cellular process that depends on quantum mechanics for it's operation. What is more finding the right path is an optimisation problem and so it basically is a specialised quantum computer (although not a Turing machine). So try again.
Regarding your last post I read something about this a while ago. It will take a while to find so I'll get back once I've found it.
Originally posted by DeepThought No, you're not allowed to have your cake and eat it. I've found a cellular process that depends on quantum mechanics for it's operation.
So did I. (refraction of light)
What is more finding the right path is an optimisation problem and so it basically is a specialised quantum computer (although not a Turing machine). No, its not a specialized quantum computer. Not even close. Its also not useful in creating a quantum computer.
Originally posted by twhitehead As I already stated, one cannot actually separate out quantum mechanical effects from normal physics all that easily, but I'll assume you are referring to the use of quantum mechanical effects specifically for its computational advantages.
1. A total lack of evidence that they do.
2. A total lack of need for them to do so.
3. The fact that using quantu ...[text shortened]... nefits for the human brain. Even if we do use it, it isn't the main reason for our intelligence.
Regarding point 4, if you're relying on the notion that individual neurones are computationally simple for that statement and that what matters is numbers and interconnectivity then that is not the case. This isn't to say that the number and interconnectivity of neurones isn't important, but that individual neurones have more computational power than was previously thought.
This is a link to an article about Purkinje cells which are a type of neurone. It's written in technobabble and hard to understand. But it demonstrates that individual neurones are not computationally simple.
This is an important part of my argument. If that were not the case it would be possible to build a Turing machine as powerful as a human brain, in fact then the current crop of supercomputers would have the same computational potential as a human brain.
Originally posted by DeepThought Regarding point 4, if you're relying on the notion that individual neurones are computationally simple for that statement and that what matters is numbers and interconnectivity then that is not the case. This isn't to say that the number and interconnectivity of neurones isn't important, but that individual neurones have more computational power than was previously thought.
It makes no difference. The mechanics of the neurons can still be emulated in a Turing machine and nothing in that article suggests otherwise.
All you are basically saying is "I don't really yet know all the exact details, therefore it must be quantum mechanics". The problem is, quantum mechanics would provide no benefits whatsoever. Even if there is a qubit in each neuron, it would not help computationally.
Besides there is no reason to think that the human brain is capable of processing prowess beyond what it can quite obviously do using pure turing methods.
Originally posted by twhitehead It makes no difference. The mechanics of the neurons can still be emulated in a Turing machine and nothing in that article suggests otherwise.
All you are basically saying is "I don't really yet know all the exact details, therefore it must be quantum mechanics". The problem is, quantum mechanics would provide no benefits whatsoever. Even if there is a ...[text shortened]... s capable of processing prowess beyond what it can quite obviously do using pure turing methods.
You cannot possibly have read the entire article in the ten minutes between me posting and you replying.
It's an important part of my argument. If a single neurone is a simple structure then I'm wrong. It's not so my argument is still alive. This was the point I was making.
Getting Exaflop computers by 2020:
09 Mar '15 19:15
Back to Top