From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!psuvax1!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Nov 26 12:32:52 EST 1991
Article 1625 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1144 comp.ai.philosophy:1625
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!psuvax1!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Zeleny's argument lives! (was re: Zeleny's argument DOA)
Message-ID: <1991Nov26.113244.5920@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 91 16:32:42 GMT
References: <DAVIS.91Nov24033509@passy.ilog.fr> <1991Nov24.124945.5834@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov26.004802.1394@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 82
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1991Nov26.004802.1394@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> 
max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:

>In article <1991Nov24.124945.5834@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>[Assume we can build a machine that exhibits our behavior and competence].
>>However, at any given time, by assessing its construction, we may comprehend
>>all causal factors that influence its behavior (to the extent that this is a
>>machine constructed by ourselves, I assume that we can do so, retracing, if
>>necessary, the modifications imposed on the initial configuration by the
>>learning process).

MW:
>You assume wrongly. Even now, the behavior of only moderately complex
>ANNs is often impossible to understand by looking only at the modified
>weights (or even the history of those weight changes). I strongly suspect
>that the more sophisticated and complex ANNs to come will be even harder
>to analyse by looking at the encodings. Your argument dies right here.

Are they more powerful then Turing Machines?  If so, explain how, and
automatically refute Church's Thesis.  If not, you lose.

MW:
>You, as a philosopher, are trying to determine what is possible and
>impossible from first principles - perhaps you can tell me why such analysis
>of an ANN is so often completely intractable. If you can't, maybe you should
>open yourself up to some real world experience - and work with a NN simulator.
>Maybe, just maybe, you have accidently enshrined false assumptions in
>your 'first principles', and then in your discourse of 1000 steps, veered
>further and further from the truth as a result.

Could it be that the issue is one of computational complexity, rather than
theoretical tractability?  Can you even tell the difference?

(Don't call me a philosopher.  You don't know what I am.)

MW:
>Having seen so many brilliant philosophers do just that, over and over
>again, I hope you will pardon us if we just don't throw up our hands and
>give up in the face of your formidable logic.

Once again, you write this in a philosophy group.  Learn to speak the
language and to follow the logic, or piss off.

MW:
>BTW, it is no less ignorant of you to try demarcate the limits of what ANN's can
>do, without ever having tried one (or without ever having studied them,
>apparently), than it is for someone else to discuss Searle's Chinese Room
>argument having read only other peoples summaries.  (I will not call you the
>names you apply to others. I will say that I consider your style obnoxious
>and arrogant, though occasionally entertaining.)

All mathematics proceeds from first principles.  I learned the semantics of
PROLOG from Kit Fine, who never programmed a computer in his entire life.
When I queried him on this apparent paradox, he cheerfully informed me that
his father spent his entire professional life designing airplanes, without
ever having flown in one.  Think about that on your next flight.

MW:
>You work from information too far removed from reality.

Ignore abstract reasoning, and you ignore reality.

>	Max


'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


