Re: Design patterns
In article <hh7bu9$urq$1@news.albasani.net>, Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> wrote:
Joshua Maurice wrote:
On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Joshua Maurice wrote:
On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stefan Ram wrote:
Jonathan Lee <cho...@shaw.ca> writes:
But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
pattern for the above problem?
Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
,
too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
be creative...
Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.
I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
This is mathematical fact....
Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this?
http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/mathematical_logic.html
http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/second_order_logic.html
I
disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.
Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
Test?
Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
problem.
Sorry, I'd like to stay away from this, but can not.
Intelligence is NOT, and never EVER will be
"a capability to find algorithm to solve some problem"
This is the HIGHER order insult to Intelligence.
That is ALL I am interested in saying or even seeing
in THIS grade of crap.
Enough.
Therefore, if it is algorithm, it should be algorithm
that produces algorithm to solve particular problem.
So result would be algorithm. But since there is no algorithm
to proof validity of second order logic formulas, solution
is not based on algorithm, rather on intuition.
What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy
in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
the system and the constituent parts?
All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.
This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
evolution by natural selection.
Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
What does this topic have to do with evolution?
Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
to be.
I think that atheists are deluded by algorithmic machines into believing
that brain is such machine. From that point of view atheists are just
another form of religion, which leads science in wrong direction.
Greets
--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:
http://preciseinfo.org
Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.