On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 08:47:46 "shahriar khan" <shahriar_khan@...>
wrote:

>
>1. Neural Networks (Human mind) Vs. Logical/Digital Networks (computers)
>
>The human mind, as with the rest of the animal kingdom, is
>composed of neural networks. As taught in elementary engineering
>courses, neural networks are completely different from the digital
>black/white networks characteristic of computers. It is also widely
>accepted that computers have very low inherent intelligence. One reason
>for this low intelligence level is that computers make decisions based
>precisely on the logical processes we are discussing.


There is a debate among Scientists (Computer Scientists/Physicists/
Neurologists) as to how intelligent a machine can be. Roger Penrose
has contended (Using Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) that a computer
can never simulate a human mind (cf. "The Shadow of the Mind"). Others,
including Frank Tipler believes in the Strong A.I (Artificial Intelligence),
where he contends that a Universal Turing machine with enough capability
if and when built can simulate a human mind. In fact he even proves using
the laws of Global General relativity and Quantum Theory and Computer Science
that in theory a more intelligent machine is not only possible but will exist
(Omega Point) in distant future which will resurrect all mortals
(cf "The Physics of Immortality"- Frank Tipler. For a review see :
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb96/PhysicsOfImmorality.html). After all,
human brain has finite (albeit large) number of neurons, so it is necessarily
a finite state machine. And with improved memory and speed in future machines
with larger processing power than human brain can be built by pooling the
accrued knowledge. The incredible progress in Nanobiology and Nanotechnology
is making the boundary bewteen artificial and real mind "fuzzy".

>
>2. Human Thought, Communication and Fuzzy Logic
>
>The case of the judge and convict illustrates the shortcomings in
>trying to interpret speech using logic. Attempting to make complete
>logical sense in the speech involved is mostly futile. One simple reason
>is that people will not agree on the same precise and exact definitions
>for simple everyday words. Human beings, quite appropriately, will
>continue to communicate with each other with words and expression which
>will baffle a computer. To the person seeking deep logic in normal
>speech, ordinary everyday expressions will be highly contradictory and
>inconsistent. However, the same expressions convey far more meaning than

Again, one has to distinguish a Boolean Logic of the computer with the
solid rules of logic that apply in human communication. I don't see how
A computer's inability to prcisely parse a human speech can justify not
following logic in human to human communication if thats what you are
advocating. After all, computer is not incidental to this thread of
discussion. Human speech can contain fallacies, contradictions,
inconsistencies
which are not inevitable, but are results of individual incompetence and
fallibility/imperfection and can be certainly improved or corrected (Again
refer to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html for a list of such
fallacies). We are familiar with people rephrasing their statements to make
it more precise and consistent. Some admit having drawn a wrong conclusions
etc. There are accepted ground rules of logic that are taught in academia.
Some of those are self evident like axioms, others are derived. Sticking to
these rules help to alleviate miscommunication between people and resolve a
debate conclusively. A debate between scientists is more likely to be
resolved
in the sense that the disagreement if any at the end may be due to the
difference
in the basic assumptions made and not a miscommunication due to
misinterpretation/
misapplication of logical rules in the inference process which is usually
the
case in a debate between lay/biased people engaging in a debate.

Human languages with discrete vocabulary may be incapable to express
every nuance of the continuum of emotions but is quite adequate to
settle human disputes with judicious applications of the rules of logic.


>can ever be grasped by even the most powerful computer. This is because
>of the neural-networks and fuzzy logic capabilities possessed by the
>human mind. Once again, I state that such neural-network based
>communication and thought has ensured human survival through
>evolutionary selection. No published references are called for in this


My understanding is thet the root of survival is the random mutation
and natural selection (For any species) as found by Darwin. I am not
a neural network specialist or have read much on it but if you could
establish a connection between neural network and random mutation/natural
selection I will accept it on its face value.


>email exchange. These facts are well established both among both
>neural-network professionals and anthropologists.
>
>It is true that the human mind has acquired great ability for logical
>thought even through these neural-networks. However, the neural networks
>will always continue to function primarily through fuzzy-logic
>processes.
>
>It was the philosopher Bertrand Russell who first attempted to break
>down mathematics into logic, in the book he is most famous for -
>Principia Mathematica. It took him perhaps a hundred pages before he
>could define the number "1". It took him about 200 pages before he could
>get to the definition of the number "0". The logical definitions of
>addition and subtraction followed.

Yes, but Russell always underscored the importance of logical reasoning
and because he didn't find any logic and didn't consider the lack of
logic in religion desirable (As you seem to advocate) he decided not to
be a Christian. (cf. "Why I am not a Christian" - Russell). So Russel's
allusion here is either irrelevant or contra-indicatory, because your main
thrust seems to have been emphasizing the potential benefit of not using
logic in religion, politics etc.

>
>He made a similar attempt to break down human speech into logical terms.
>He had far less success in this venture. It is ominous that this attempt
>took a very great toll on the quality of his own life. Could this imply
>that attempting to find logical explanations for intuitive reasoning may
>actually interfere with a person's well-being and quality of life?

There are numerous Physicists/Cosmologists/Computer Scientists who are
at the forefront of investigation of consciousness/brain/mind and the role
of neural network/microtubule in these who are perfectly healthy (Roger
Penrose, Henry Stapp etc). These are changed times. Information has exploded
since the days of Russell and is expanding at a frenzied pace that we
laypeople can hardly keep up with. For more on these fascinating topics
let me refer the readers to two sites:

1. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psyche-index-v2.html

2. http://www.hia.com/pcr/stapp1.html

>
>Regarding topics of marriage, religion, politics, and philosophy,
>I do assert again the very great and necessary role of intuition,
>instinct, and gut feeling. These decision making processes are the
>products of millions of years of evolutionary programming of the human
>mind. Trying to supersede and over-ride them with pure logic may
>actually interfere with our own happiness and well-being.

In many societies, specially the West, logic indeed has superseded
many worn out outdated and useless religious and social dictums and taboos
and have resulted in progress. Logic itself may be a natural selection
applied
to human species to make room for advancement. Before religion declared that
earth was the center of the solar system. When logic and evidence demanded
that Sun was the center,first there was a phase of denial and condemnation
of
this idea by religious bodies. The rest is history. I agree with you on the
effect of millions of years of evolutionary programming on decision making
processes. True, intuition, instinct, and gut feeling is important, as I
mentioned in last post, it is applied routinely in scientific research as
well,
but I don't see any good result of applying them in religion (religion is
blind
faith anyway). The same is true for politics, where it is used as vehicle
for
corrupt people to further their own selfish interests. I don't see how all
your
points so far justify attributing any negative effect of using logic anyway.
I
contended that logic cannot explain or solve ALL the problems of the world.
In
thoss cases instinct/intuition/guess work does help. A parable called
"Buridan's
Ass(Donkey)" will illustrate the point: A donkey stood between two
identical
piles of hay. The donkey was a stickler for logic and failed to decide using
any
logic whether to start eating the hay from his left or the right. The poor
donkey
eventually died of hunger as he insisted on logic to decide for every
action! A
random guess is better than no guess when one has exhausted all logical
recourse.
This is the key to survival.

Summary: My intent was not to get bogged down in a discussion of neural
network, computer vs. human mind etc. Nor was it the original intent of
the thread, I believe. My only contention is that I don't see why it is
being advocated not to use logic and reason in every human thought/action
In other words I am challenging the conclusion that "not using logic is
more useful than using it when it is applicable" and if thats what you are
implying.

Thank you for bringing this interesting topic up although we have
differences of
views on it.

Masud

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alochona
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com