Re: brute force and knowledge

[Jeremy Thorpe <jthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy Thorpe (#455)                     "why is a rhyme the next best
Mech. Engineering undergrad at UCR                 thing to a reason?"
www.engr.ucr.edu/~jthorpe                               -jeremy thorpe

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

> At 02:37 PM 12/1/98 +1300, Barry Phease wrote:
> >Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> >
> >> It is a wrong guess. A player isn't seeing thousands of moves, not to
> >> mention million of moves, or billion of moves (billions of braincells
> >> available). A player only sees a FEW positions, and thinks out a few
> >> lines, and definitely not done in parallel.
> >> 
> >> I don't have a split personality, not to mention splitting personality
> >> in billion of things at the same time, all doing the same!
> >> 
> >> Every neuron is doing a different and unique job.
> >
> >This seems to me to contradict what you said earlier.  Every neuron is
> >doing a different job AT THE SAME TIME.  This is parallel processing. 
> >Of course we don't perceive it as parallel processing, as our brain
> >simulates a serial processor which is our conscious thinker.
> 
> So we're not SEARCHING parallel. that's what it is about. 
> 
> >Pattern matching in our brains is a highly parallel task, which is
> >almost comletely transparent to introspection.
> 
> Not for the search we're doing. The receiving yes, but every neuron
> i think does a different job, so it's not the case that we have
> 361 parallel neurons which try to match a pattern a at the same time
> seen from that field.

i don't mean to start any bad karma in this group, but could we all just
agree that john clarke has not made a strong point yet, and just move on?
this talk of parallelism has hardly been forwarded well enough to make a
good counter-argument.

-jeremy

> 
> >-- 
> >Barry Phease
> >
> >mailto:barryp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.es.co.nz/~barryp
> >
> >
>