(March 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This whole business about forming an algorithm is one big red herring. You admit that computers can form algorithms, but only because humans program them. Well this is tacitly accepting that an algorithm can form an algorithm. If humans can form an algorithm then, it is not necessarily the case that their doing so is non-algorithmic. Algorithms can create algorithms and since that means that human algorithm formation could be algorithmic, it defeats the premise that algorithm formation is a sign of free will, because human algorithm creation could itself be deterministically algorithmic.

That was one of the things I wanted him to realize when I asked him about machine learning (programs literally experiencing and remembering things) and self-modifying code (programs modifying and expanding their own capabilities). Does it really matter that a human seeded it with the initial code? After all, humans are merely biological machines programmed by sequences of chemicals reacting to various electrical impulses. You have a biological machine programming a technological machine. Where's the appreciable difference lie, apart from complexity? Keeping in mind that our brains are the end results of millions of years of evolution and that computer science is less than a century old.

But instead I got "herp derp Einstein."

And it's incredibly obvious that pool hasn't spent any time with computer science. Maybe he's had some intro level programming classes, but that's not the same thing.

(March 10, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 9:34 pm)pool the great Wrote: Yes

Then you do not know much about algorithms or combinatorics; no known linear solution exists for the TSP, at least in general.

Then you have 0 creativity

(March 11, 2016 at 2:16 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This whole business about forming an algorithm is one big red herring. You admit that computers can form algorithms, but only because humans program them. Well this is tacitly accepting that an algorithm can form an algorithm. If humans can form an algorithm then, it is not necessarily the case that their doing so is non-algorithmic. Algorithms can create algorithms and since that means that human algorithm formation could be algorithmic, it defeats the premise that algorithm formation is a sign of free will, because human algorithm creation could itself be deterministically algorithmic.

That was one of the things I wanted him to realize when I asked him about machine learning (programs literally experiencing and remembering things) and self-modifying code (programs modifying and expanding their own capabilities). Does it really matter that a human seeded it with the initial code? After all, humans are merely biological machines programmed by sequences of chemicals reacting to various electrical impulses. You have a biological machine programming a technological machine. Where's the appreciable difference lie, apart from complexity? Keeping in mind that our brains are the end results of millions of years of evolution and that computer science is less than a century old.

But instead I got "herp derp Einstein."

And it's incredibly obvious that pool hasn't spent any time with computer science. Maybe he's had some intro level programming classes, but that's not the same thing.

Fascinating kev.
So how many computers have made scientific advancements since you feel there is no distinction?

(March 7, 2016 at 3:43 am)pool the great Wrote: In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will? What is your opinion on the matter?

It is my opinion that humans does possess free will, so I will be arguing for it. I feel that I do poses free will as I am capable of deciding what I'm going to do in the very next minute. If I didn't poses free will then I should've been incapable of deciding what I'm going to do even in the next second. Thus as I have a control over my actions I have free will.

Simply because your actions feel free doesn't mean they are free. In a deterministic universe where humans have the illusion of free will, it would be impossible to tell whether any of your actions or decision are free. For all you know, EVERY decision you make - what to have for breakfast, what film to see, whom to marry - is simply the inexorable outcome of the mechanistic processes established when the Universe instantiated.

Sleep well.

Boru

(March 11, 2016 at 5:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 7, 2016 at 3:43 am)pool the great Wrote: In your opinion do you feel that humans possesses free will? What is your opinion on the matter?

It is my opinion that humans does possess free will, so I will be arguing for it. I feel that I do poses free will as I am capable of deciding what I'm going to do in the very next minute. If I didn't poses free will then I should've been incapable of deciding what I'm going to do even in the next second. Thus as I have a control over my actions I have free will.

Simply because your actions feel free doesn't mean they are free. In a deterministic universe where humans have the illusion of free will, it would be impossible to tell whether any of your actions or decision are free. For all you know, EVERY decision you make - what to have for breakfast, what film to see, whom to marry - is simply the inexorable outcome of the mechanistic processes established when the Universe instantiated.

Sleep well.

Boru

I'd like some evidence that our future is predefined

(March 11, 2016 at 5:49 am)pool the great Wrote:

(March 11, 2016 at 5:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Simply because your actions feel free doesn't mean they are free.  In a deterministic universe where humans have the illusion of free will, it would be impossible to tell whether any of your actions or decision are free.  For all you know, EVERY decision you make - what to have for breakfast, what film to see, whom to marry - is simply the inexorable outcome of the mechanistic processes established when the Universe instantiated.

Sleep well.

Boru

I'd like some evidence that our future is predefined

I didn't say it was so.  My point was that you have no way of knowing whether it was predefined.  Your choices may only appear to be free.  Let's say that you agonize over which shoe you're going to put on first in the morning.  You finally 'decide' you're going to put on the left one first, all well and good.  But there's simply no way to know if you were going to put on the left one first all along.  Your Footgear Implementation Programme seems free, it feels free, but you can't ever determine if it is free.

Boru

(March 11, 2016 at 5:23 am)pool the great Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Then you do not know much about algorithms or combinatorics; no known linear solution exists for the TSP, at least in general.

Then you have 0 creativity

Then, please, show us your proof:

Quote:The travelling salesman problem (TSP) asks the following question: Given a list of cities and the distances between each pair of cities, what is the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once and returns to the origin city? It is an NP-hard problem in combinatorial optimization, important in operations research and theoretical computer science.


Solution of a travelling salesman problem
TSP is a special case of the travelling purchaser problem and the vehicle routing problem.
In the theory of computational complexity, the decision version of the TSP (where, given a length L, the task is to decide whether the graph has any tour shorter than L) belongs to the class of NP-complete problems. Thus, it is possible that the worst-case running time for any algorithm for the TSP increases superpolynomially (perhaps, specifically, exponentially) with the number of cities.
The problem was first formulated in 1930 and is one of the most intensively studied problems in optimization. It is used as a benchmark for many optimization methods. Even though the problem is computationally difficult, a large number of heuristics and exact algorithms are known, so that some instances with tens of thousands of cities can be solved completely and even problems with millions of cities can be approximated within a small fraction of 1%.[1]
The TSP has several applications even in its purest formulation, such as planning, logistics, and the manufacture of microchips. Slightly modified, it appears as a sub-problem in many areas, such as DNA sequencing. In these applications, the concept city represents, for example, customers, soldering points, or DNA fragments, and the concept distance represents travelling times or cost, or a similarity measure between DNA fragments. The TSP also appears in astronomy, as astronomers observing many sources will want to minimise the time spent slewing the telescope between the sources. In many applications, additional constraints such as limited resources or time windows may be imposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling...an_problem

Moar.

Quote:These systems actually can come up with new algorithms for doing certain tasks. For example, take a look at this paper[1], where they develop a system that can sometimes generate code beating expert hand-written assembly by finding a new algorithm for the same problem.

Can computers write their own algorithms?

(March 11, 2016 at 8:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Moar.

Quote:These systems actually can come up with new algorithms for doing certain tasks. For example, take a look at this paper[1], where they develop a system that can sometimes generate code beating expert hand-written assembly by finding a new algorithm for the same problem.

Can computers write their own algorithms?

Can that computer write an algorithm to break dance?

(March 11, 2016 at 8:22 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 11, 2016 at 5:23 am)pool the great Wrote: Then you have 0 creativity

Then, please, show us your proof:

Quote:The travelling salesman problem (TSP) asks the following question: Given a list of cities and the distances between each pair of cities, what is the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once and returns to the origin city? It is an NP-hard problem in combinatorial optimization, important in operations research and theoretical computer science.


Solution of a travelling salesman problem
TSP is a special case of the travelling purchaser problem and the vehicle routing problem.
In the theory of computational complexity, the decision version of the TSP (where, given a length L, the task is to decide whether the graph has any tour shorter than L) belongs to the class of NP-complete problems. Thus, it is possible that the worst-case running time for any algorithm for the TSP increases superpolynomially (perhaps, specifically, exponentially) with the number of cities.
The problem was first formulated in 1930 and is one of the most intensively studied problems in optimization. It is used as a benchmark for many optimization methods. Even though the problem is computationally difficult, a large number of heuristics and exact algorithms are known, so that some instances with tens of thousands of cities can be solved completely and even problems with millions of cities can be approximated within a small fraction of 1%.[1]
The TSP has several applications even in its purest formulation, such as planning, logistics, and the manufacture of microchips. Slightly modified, it appears as a sub-problem in many areas, such as DNA sequencing. In these applications, the concept city represents, for example, customers, soldering points, or DNA fragments, and the concept distance represents travelling times or cost, or a similarity measure between DNA fragments. The TSP also appears in astronomy, as astronomers observing many sources will want to minimise the time spent slewing the telescope between the sources. In many applications, additional constraints such as limited resources or time windows may be imposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling...an_problem

Exactly the reason why I said you need to think creatively.

Ask me this, can I write an algorithm to accomplish an impossible task? Like get to moon in one jump?
Yes. Of course I can. You can't seem to figure it out because you are thinking one dimensionally