Oh, Max, this was fascinating! Thank you, Sweetie.
I think I understand what Mr. Greene means about irrationality. I think it refers, among other things, to the intuitive leaps the human mind can take.

Here is a quote from the article:

Remember, the Greek 'logos' means 'ratio' or 'meaningful speech' (interesting that to the Greeks the two should be so closely related). 'Alogos', which uses the alpha privative, means not the opposite of rational, but simply 'lacking in rationality' or 'other than rational' (other than 'logos').

By 'insight' I mean a very real (if personal and unpredictable) window into, and experience of, a very real area of the universe, and not just some spooky gibberish.

I think the second paragraph may illustrate part of what he means by irrationality. And, if anyone can interpret
"alpha privative" for me, I would appreciate it. I have absolutely no idea of what that means.

Ahh, but what is intelligence without empathy for others?

what is intelligence without empathy for others?
Superiority complex; pariah-hood; always alone;
these come immediately to mind.

If it were anybody but Stephen Hawking, I would be tempted to say something rude. One of his assumptions, though, I question: that the rate of increase in capacity of computers will continue at the present rate. The BPS limit has not been reached as soon as expected, and parallel computing can be greatly increased, but it seems to me that for intelligence to be achieved would require design and software advances unimaginable at present.

'Alogos', which uses the alpha privative, means not the opposite of rational

I believe this means that by adding "a" (that is, alpha) to a Greek word, you are changing the sense of it to mean the lack of that thing. I'm guessing that privative is from the same root as deprive - thus the sense of "to take away" or "lack."

You are correct, Hyla. The prefix "alpha" ('a' in English) denotes the lack of something, or occasionally takes a meaning like the English prefix "un" or "non". I included this explanation in a post (I forget the subject) not too long ago. That shows me how much people read my posts (or pay attention to them, at any rate).

I remember. I remember. Me. Me. Me.

http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=37887&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1#Post37887

(Hope the post isn't too wide.)

I included this explanation in a post (I forget the subject) not too long ago.
Forgive me. I didn't listen to the little voice that said, "You HAVE seen that, and recently." I should have done a Search.

for intelligence to be achieved would require design and software advances unimaginable at present

“I’ve seen the future…!”


"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"But what is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
- Western Union internal memo, 1876

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy."
- Drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist for his project to drill for oil in 1859

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"640K (of RAM) ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981

Human imagination’s a wonderful tool, isn’t it, Dr Bill!

Great quotes, Mav. I was surprised at how many of them came from innovators in their field -- you'd think they'd remember all the people that told them "no way" as they were coming up.

(Hope the post isn't too wide.)

Wasn't on my screen, but note:

http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=37887

will get you there just as well. You don't need all that stuff after the Number=nnnnn.

And a note to strangers and newbies. If, instead of http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl you have http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl at the beginning you'll end up in the whole thread and specifically at the first post. Makes it hard to find the specific post so any information to direct us to the post you have in mind would be helpful. Like the poster, date and time of the post.

That shows me how much people read my posts (or pay attention to them, at any rate).

Shame on y'all for not realizing immediately that alpha privative meant a-! And y'all call y'allse'fs philologists!

- Bill Gates, 1981


This one is widely acknowledged as apocryphal

Really! Who, much less Bill Gates, would think anyone would need as much as 640K RAM! When I was getting in to computers it was widely acknowledged that 4K was plenty for anyone.

for intelligence to be achieved would require design and software advances unimaginable at present

Dear Mav"Why, sometimes I've believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

I'm not sure I'm ready to swallow up just anything by someone who seems to think of Stephen Hawking as primarily a "popular-science oracle".

I would certainly like to see Hawking's original before I attempted to speak intelligently about a criticism of it.

re: for intelligence to be achieved would require design and software advances unimaginable at present

actually, researchers at Cal Tech, and other universities, have been exploring creating QM* computers.. if they can actually make one, it would be 1000+ times faster, and more powerfull (ie, greater memory) than anything we have today.. Its not that it hasn't been imagined, it is that it just hasn't yet been constructed.

* see tsumw thread in Misc. about QM

Nonetheless, the article is, in my humble opinion, quite right. You may remember the argument about artificial intelligence in the previous thread. There's an "X" factor about human intelligence which I simply don't think can be reproduced mechanically, electronically or even biologically.

And, as I may have mentioned previously, my post-grad dissertation was an AI piece about computational linguistics. AI is quite possible, but it will never approximate human intelligence. Again, IMHO.

So there!

PS: They can't hang Hawkings, can they?

Max, that was hysterically funny! Thank you for providing that humorous link.

Nonetheless, the article is, in CapK's humble opinion, quite right.

Well, now, in classic NYC cocktail party tradition, I haven't actually® read either article yet. And I think that attempts to simulate anything as poorly understood as human intelligence are doomed. I just wouldn't want to accept the ravings of someone who cavalierly categorizes Stephen Hawking as a "popular-science oracle" without having read the ravings of the "popular-science oracle" himself. My local newsstand didn't have a copy of the relevant issue of Focus and the on-line edition doesn't give access to the cover story.

Shame on y'all for not realizing immediately that alpha privative meant a-!
Excuse me for not being able to guess, based on a language I've never studied, then. My first guess would probably have been "deprived of an a", which makes no more sense to me than alpha privative did!

Excuse me for not being able to guess

Where's that sarcasm icon when you really need it...

Oh, wai, wait. There it is </board/images/icons/tongueincheek.gif>

Reminds me of some of the book reviews in the New York Times Book Review, with hardly anything about the book supposedly being reviewed; the book seeming to be little more than a springboard for the reviewer's pet hobby horse.

I saw nothing in the whiff of the original interview that Mr. Greene in Washington chose to waft before our collective nose that suggests that Mr Hawking thinks that we can simulate human intelligence. I would like to see the original interview and preferably in what I would assume was the original English and not an English translation of the German translation that I would guess is what Mr. Greene in Washington had to work with.

As for being able to deal with machine intelligence, whatever that means, I find it about as radical an idea as the idea that we be able to control the speed a direction of a motor vehicle.

Well, now, in classic NYC cocktail party tradition, I haven't actually® read either article yet. And I think that attempts to simulate anything as poorly understood as human intelligence are doomed. I just wouldn't want to accept the ravings of someone who cavalierly categorizes Stephen Hawking as a "popular-science oracle" without having read the ravings of the "popular-science oracle" himself. My local newsstand didn't have a copy of the relevant issue of Focus and the on-line edition doesn't give access to the cover story.

No, you're quite right, Faldage. My point was merely to say that I agreed with the on-line version's rationale for it being impossible to artificially reproduce human thought processes. Nothing more.