[Document No. 1] 1-1340 [Original Source] Natural Dialectics Research [Original Name] Beijing [Original Session] 199911 [Original No. 201] 29 ~ 34 [Category] B2 [Classification Name] Science and Technology Philosophy [Copy Session] 200002 【Title】 Gothen 's Solutions - Brain - Computer Questions [Title Note] This article is the result of the national philosophy and social science planning project (approval number: 98bz029). [Author] Liu Xiaoli [Author's introduction] Liu Xiaoli, female, born in 1954, Professor of Philosophy of Inner Mongolia University. Zip code: Inner Mongolia Hohhot 010021 [Content] "Can the computer replace the human brain," Is it better than the computer? This is the most passionate puzzle of contemporary soul philosophers. There is another group of scientists and philosophers with a mathematical background. It is difficult to defend the temptation of "Kurt G @ 4Del) informally. However, Gö dere believes that it is necessary to add other philosophical assumptions based with the incomplete theorem is not enough to launch so tough arguments. Based on the important manuscript of Gotel in recent years, this paper explores his associate-brain-computer problem unique solution, expects to provide a reference for contemporary soul philosophical debate. [Text] Today, computer culture has highlighted its important position in human culture, "whether the computer can replace the human brain", "whether human mind is better than computer", "Can human beings become a slave of machines? This kind of problem with the super computer "deep blue" overcome the extraordinary move of the World Chess Master, more popular, arguing for half a century - Brain - computer problem 20th century, the end of the soul, natural scientists and White heat in artificial intelligence experts. Strong artificial intelligence views seem to have further supported evidence from the "dark blue" behavior. Because of their point of view, the spiritual activity process is the same as the machine execution process, but is the arithmetic process called algorithm for some good definition. The main difference between the human brain and simple computers is only in human brain activities with greater complexity, or is a more advanced structure, but all of the spiritual quality of people, including thinking, emotion, wisdom, and consciousness is the brain implementation. "Algorithm" feature. These views have once been strongly attacked by many scientists. Since the 1990s, they have been critical to the soul philosophers of the mind - the spirit of the mind. According to the strict distinction between the most famous representatives of the contemporary spiritual philosophy, the weak artificial intelligence perspective believes that the main value of the computer is to provide an advantageous tool for the heart (MIN) research, for example, it can make it We use a stricter and accurate way to form, process and verify and use it. Strong artificial intelligence points not only see computer as a research tool, but more extremely believed that appropriate programmed computer itself is in the state of heart, it is considered that the computer that is given the correct procedure does understand things and have other cognitive status. . In this way, "computer program can not only help us verify the psychological interpretation. On the contrary, the program itself is explained." In 1997, Selle published him to explore the heart - brain - computer problem new "Consciousness Mystery", for strong manual intelligence I launched a new round of philosophical offensive. By telling the story of the famous "hamburger" and uses his so-called "Chinese House" concept to refute the views held by strong artificial intelligence experts: It can be used in the precise sense that the computer has human understanding of stories and answers. Ability of related problems. In the view of Sel, the computer's understanding of the computer is not different, compared with the human mind of the computer, it is not only not complete, but it is entirely a blank.
Of course, for Sel, it is important to demonstrate "computer can't think", but to answer "correct input and output plus correct calculation itself is enough to guarantee the existence of thinking?" "If we say the machine is Refers to a physical system with a function, or only from the perspective of calculation, the brain is a computer ", but the essence of the heart is not the case. Sel believes that computer programs are purely defined according to grammar rules, and the grammar itself is not sufficient to guarantee the intention and semantics presentation, and the operation of the program is only the ability to generate the next step in the machine, and does not guarantee the heart. The appearance of the state. Only those who use a computer and give a computer must have an intention of explaining the output. Intentionality is the function of human heart, the essence of the heart can not be programmed, that is, the essence of the heart is not an algorithm. Therefore, to explore the problem of heart-brain-computer, first clarify the concept of "algorithm". 1 Algorithm concept The rheological algorithm is just an intuitive concept. The algorithm for people can understand the calculation rules in a limited period of time in a limited period of time, and the mechanical operation of the exact calculation results can be obtained in poor steps. step. The most familiar example of people is a classic algorithm for the maximum number of conventions of European. In 1928, German mathematician Hilbert (D. Hilbert) proposed the following judgment in the Bonte International Macker Conference: Whether there is a general solution to solve all in principle (some appropriate definition class) Mechanical steps for mathematical problems? The "mechanical step" here is actually the intuitive concept of the Algorithm. 1936 British mathematician, extraordinary password decipherive expert Tuling (AMTURING) introduced the concept of "Figure Ling Machine", the first time gives a strict mathematical expression of algorithm concept, "algorithm can calculate function" " . Since then, people find that "λ- can calculate functions", "general recursive functions", "formal algorithm" and "Perster calculations" are all mathematics definitions about the "algorithm" equivalent "algorithm". It is exactly the precise definition of the algorithm, and people have quickly proved that there is no general algorithm that solves all mathematical problems, and it has also specifically proves that there is no algorithm that solves some important judgment issues (such as the judgment of the predicate calculation, the determination of shutdown issues) , The equivalent determination of the word half group, the determination of the fractional decomposition of the graphical equation, etc.). The Tuling is to prove that there is no general algorithm that does not have the problem of determining the problem of deciding to decide the problem of the problem of the chart. The a.church has proved the same conclusions using this completely different way. More importantly, it is the accurate mathematical expression of the algorithm to make the electronic computer in the modern sense. Today, with the development of computer applications and theories, the computational complexity of static and dynamic complexity of research algorithms has become an important field. In 1936, Tuling was published in the "London Digidament" on the topic of the mind - brain - computer, "Theory can be calculated", which pointing, "We will assume that the number of states that need to be counted is It is poor. This is because if we admit that the state of the heart has an endless state, some of them will be confused because 'any approach' is coming. "This paragraph was seen as" human mind at the time " An argument that is not possible to surpass the mechanical program. In 1950, Tuling also published an article titled "Computer and Music" in "Heart" (MIND) magazine. He wrote: "I am going to consider a question: Can the machine think?", And proposed famous The concept of "Tianting Test". The article implies the "human heart is equivalent to a computer", this paper is undoubtedly a strong social assistant in the late 1940s, and naturally arguing a big argument. Some philosophers and logologians in the opposition camps in this debate are more keen on the argument of the Gotel theorem as a basis.
It is difficult to resist a strong temptation: from 1931 Tendell's incomplete nature theorem to proof the "people's heart-winning computer". Because of the Gothen, in any form of system containing primary equivalents, there must be an unknown proposition, ie it and its negation is not verified in the system. Alternatively, any theorem proves that machines and procedures will miss the true mathematical propositions, and mathematical truth is impossible to completely return to the nature of algorithm. John Lucas in 1961, in "Philosophy) 36 volumes, the first wrote" Heart, Machine, Gothe "in the" Philosophy) 36 volume, trying to use Gö der's theorem to prove the "people's heart more than computer" Conclusion: "According to me, Gotel Theorem proves that the mechanicalism is wrong, that is, the heart cannot explain into a machine." Because, "Whenever we construct how complicated machines, as long as it is a machine, it corresponds to A form system, then find a cracking of the Cantonese in the system, which can be hit by the Goter program, and the machine cannot be derived from the formula, but people can see it is true. So this The machine is not a proper model. We always want to make a mechanical model of the heart, that is, from essentially 'death' model, the heart is 'live', it can always be more than any form, a zombie system Well done". Subsequently, another American philosopher Whiteley was published in the next 37 "philosophy" magazine, a short but strong refuteed article "Heart, machine, Gotel - responding Ruskas", I have caused many people involved and up to decades. In 1979, the American best-selling book "Gotel, Ai Sher, Bach - a Eternal Gold", "Gother, Ai Sher, Bach - A Eternal Gold", and the Musical Music and Gotel theorem in Bach. The unique way is connected, and it is very dramatically writes a song-Brain-Computer's "metaphorical", which expounds how to use Gö der or not to delegate manual intelligence program from multiple perspectives. In 1989, the English mathematician, the physicist Roger Peng Ros (Roger Penrose) still tried to take a lot of push ink in a large number of inks in the world's "Emperor New Brain - Computer, Music and Physical Law". Argument "The Human Heart is more than the computer", known as "the strong application of Gotermate theorem is surprising." Therefore, on the 13th volume of the "Behavior and Brain Sciences" magazine, on the 13th volume of the Baovior And Brain Sciences The opportunity has repeatedly triggered a controversy involved in many people, including the book's content written by the book, the book review of others and the author's reply, even the 62 pages, PP.643-705.). Pengros' strong argument is roughly: by the Gödler theorem can be drawn, human judgmentary process is transcending any algorithm, because the awareness is the key to understanding mathematics truth, this conscious is that we can use intuition Insight's "see" (see) certain truth of mathematical propositions that cannot be proved in mathematical forms, and consciousness cannot be formified, it must be non-algorithm. Therefore, the computer will never surpass human mind, and the computer is just a pair of "emperor new brain" love for the intelligent intelligence expert. The "algorithm" here has evolved everything that the computer can simulate, including "parallel computing", "neural network", "inspiration", "learning", and the role of the environment.
2 Does Gö der Theorem contains the conclusion of "people's heart winning computers"? From the important manuscript of Newly discovered Gothe and the 1960s and Wang Hao's conversation, we learned that, first, Gödell himself does not oppose some of the evidence that uses his theorem as a conclusion of "people who exceed the computer", Because in his opinion, the incomplete theorem did not give the limit of human rationality, only revealed the inherent limitations of formalism in mathematics, but only using his incomplete theorem is not enough to make such tough arguments, you need to attach New assumption. However, Gö der also concluded that "the function of the brain is not like an automatic computer", and the essence of the heart is not the case. In fact, after strictly distinguishing between hearts, brains, computers, "Whether the human heart is better than computer" can be converted to two child problems: 1 Is the brain and heart functionality equivalent to a computer, while computer equivalence In one form system. 2 Whether all mental activities are calculated, and there is a computer that can fully capture all of human spiritual activities. The first question is the correct question, the second problem is the issue of mental computabilism. The same spirit of cardinal and brain is the spiritual philosophical theory of the Western, which is quite popular in the end of the 1950s. The core is the movement of animals and human psychological activities with the brain, including physicalism's heart and brain. The same theory of entity equivalents, language equivalents and functional equivalents) and non-physicist heartbroken heart. At the same time, the mental computationalism advocates the topic, the brain and heart function is basically like a computer, the brain is completely fully fully fully explained, all mental phenomena is actually calculated, involving Gotel theorem, our The more specific issues will be more focused on "whether the machine can fully capture the mathematical ability". Some manuscripts in Gö der and in the 1970s conversation, you can see that Gö der has strictly refuteed to the heartbroken mind and the calcigueism, and in his opinion, the syncies of heart and brain are completely "era." Prejudice. We know that Gödel is a machine that has proved to any theorem, there are some truth we can see it intuition, but this machine cannot prove that it is a mathematical proposition. Therefore, this seems to indicate that the ability of the agencies exceeds any computer at this proven to the aim. However, when we tried to make a demonstration of this, we found that this contains an unpleasant vulnerability. In the Gibbs speech made in 1951, "a number of basic theorems in mathematics" (speech manuscript issued in 1995), Gotte pointed out that "a possible conclusion from my theorem can be launched is as follows Listing judgment containing two support questions: or (a) mathematics is not complete in the sense, that is, its own axioms cannot be included in the poor rules, so people's hearts exceed the poor machine; or (b) There are absolutely unrecognizable problems with people's hearts. ... Two 选 选 支 支 对 对 对 对 对 对 学 学 学 学 学 学 学 学 学 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对 对Mathematics objects are just our creation. "In 1972, a review of" a philosophical mistake in Tuling Work "(1972a), Gotel first pointed out that the" spiritual process of the spirit "given by Tuling The argument is not sufficient than the mechanical process. "Because it relies on the heart that can only present a poorly distinguished state this assumption, it is obvious that the imperial is ignored a fact, that is, it is not still still in its use. But keep in development. Although every stage of its development, the number of possible states of heart is poor, but there is no reason, this number does not converge in the process of the development of infinity.
Gothe said in the discussion with Wang Hao, the argument of Tuling will stand after the two assumptions will stand up: 1 No heart separated from the substance. 2 The function of the brain is basically like a digital computer. Gothe believes. 2 has a high inventive, but in any case, it is to be absent from science, it is a prejudice in our era. Next, Gödel uses his position to say the above words to the above words: If we are like Hilbert, it is believed that "human rationality proposed by human rationality can be able to answer", then you can Needrying the second aspiration, because, the problem of the number of people who recognize the absolute unreasonableness is relaxed with our belief. Such a first choice of speech should be established, that is, a heart winning computer. It can be seen that in Gotel, it is attached to the "human rational proposed problem human rationality must be able to answer" such a philosophical assumption, and the conclusion of "people's heart winning computers" can be launched from incompletely theorem. Of course, Gö deer also realized that this issue of cardinal and brain symphony or computationalism may not be convincing, because it is a inference. What is more worth noting is that a form of Gotel Theorem is to say, any appropriate theorem certificate machine, or theorem proof program, if it is consistent, it cannot prove that it is the proposition that expresses its own consistent proposition is theorem. In the Gibbs speech, Gotel also came to the following conclusions along this idea: (1) "There is no ability to make it all mathematical intuition formula (or mechanized mechanizing). This is to say, if people have Its mathematical intuition formulation, this matter will produce new intuitive knowledge, for example, knowledge about the consistency of the form. This fact can be called the 'incompletability of mathematics. On the other hand, based on the results we have proven to date, it is still not ruled out that there may be (and can even discover) a positive certificate machine, which is true to [people's heart] math intuition, but, We can't prove that it can do this, or even prove that it has just got the correct (Correcte) of the poor number. (2) "or the people win the machine (more strictly, it It is possible to determine the problem than any machine to determine the problem), or the number of people who are unknown [absolute] unrecognizable (not excluding the truth). "Gödel admits that there is no exclusion that there is a positive certificate of the machine M indexes, but it is important that there is such a machine, and it can be obtained from the incomplete nature to immediately draw the following two conclusions: 1 It is impossible to prove that M does do this; 2m does not even prove that it just produces the correct theorem. Because we can prove that M just producing the correct theorem, because our intuition can prove that M consistent, "M is consistent "" The conclusion is intuitive, then the assumptions by M should also be able to prove that the M it is consistent, which is obviously contradictory with the Gö der. So 2 is true. In addition, we have to prove that M inde It is an equivalent to the intuition of human mathematics, that is, it completely captures the mathematical abilities of the people (reasonable assumptions, "capabilities" refer to the correct rather than errors; "prove" The proof of proof), then this means that we have a mathematical proof that it can prove that M is just the correct theorem, which is obviously with 2 contradictions, and use Gö der, we have proved that 2 is true.
Therefore, the core of the problem is not in whether there is a proof of the agencies that can capture the human intuition, and it is precisely that even if there is such a machine, it cannot prove that it does this. Just like Gothe said: "Does not exclude this possibility, that is, there is a poor rule (or a computer) that can produce all of its own self-axioms. However, if such rules exist, according to our human understanding, it will never be exact Know it must be the case; that is, we can never know how to know the theorem of it is correct; or, in other words, we can only know the truth of the proposition of poorer in Percive. However, all of them are really most experienced, this assertion is based on a full-large number of special examples, or other summary reasoning. "So" there is no poor rule to fully capture our mathematics Intuition - Because, supplementary, we can also know its consistency, this has exceeded these rules themselves. "Gotel also distinguished the concept of mathematics and objective sense of subjective sense: subjective sense of mathematics is All the system of mathematical propositions that can be determined; the objective mathematics is all the system of all true mathematics. Due to this distinction, Gothen pointed out that "or subjective mathematics exceeds all computer computing power, or objective mathematics exceeds all subjective mathematics, or both true." Then Gotel gave a few conclusions that caused a controversy: " If the first point of view is established, it impossible to operate the operation of human minds that cannot be attributed to the brain. All operations of the brain seem to be a poor machine with poor components, neurons, and their connectivity. "" " The second ignition is also related to whether the mathematics is just our own ideas; because the creator must know all the characteristics of his creation, they can't have other in addition to those features given by creators. Features, this seems to mean that mathematical objects and mathematical facts (at least some of them) are objective, and are independent of our spiritual activities and willing, that is, some forms about mathematics objects. 'Plato' s or 'Realism' is established. "If we accept this reasoning of Gotel, we have a variant of the above: or calculate the calciginalism is fake, or Plato in mathematics. It is true; do not exclude the two conclusions. In fact, one of the purposes of Gibbs speech is to attempt to demonstrate the rationality of the Mathematical Platoist position. In his later years and Wang Hao's conversation, Gotel reiterates his point of view: "The incomplete results do not exclude the possibility of fact that there is a fact that theorem has a proof of computer intuitive intuitive intuitive certificates. But theorem contains, in this case Next, or we can't know the details of this computer, or don't know if it will work accurately (Correctly). "" My incomplete theorem makes the mind is not machine, or the machine is not possible to understand its own conclusion Beibbeas. "" If I hold my results with Hilbert, use my results that cannot be refuted by my results (rational question rationality must be able to answer), then [we can launch] mind Not a manner's clear conclusion. This is because if the mind is a machine, then the number of problems in human mentalness cannot be determined will be contradictory with this rationalist position. "Gotel explained Wang Hao:" I said The mind refers to an individual with unlimited life. This is different from the aggregation of the mind of the species. It is idea that there is a person committed to solving the entire problem: This is related to the real issue, and people will continue to introduce new axioms. "3 The solution depends on the elimination and scientific progress of the connotation paradox, in addition to the necessary philosophical hypothesis, in Gotel, the difficulties of answering the question "Whether the human heart is better than the computer" is also its paradox with the connotation related.
In 1972, at the meeting of Von Novan, Gotel once asked: "Is there any surprising in this concept that completely knows its own procedure?" Obviously, is human beings to beyond itself? - or whether the computer program can jump out of itself - this is an extremely interesting topic. The number of form systems can talk about itself, but can not surpass itself. A computer can modify its own programs, but it is not possible to violate its own instructions - in order to change certain parts of its own instructions. This is quite similar to the humor paradox of "God can't make a stone that you can't lose." The conclusion of Gödel Theorem is that a consistent form of system or theorem certificate machine is not possible to prove its own consistency. In order to vote, a clear idea is to find a demonstration that sufficient to indicate that heart wisdom can prove its own consistency. In the conversation with Wang Hao, Didel gave several arguments along this idea: "Due to the 'concept', 'proposition' and 'proven' and other general concepts in their most unsolveable connotation paradox The existence, there is no definitive argument that uses these concepts, at the current stage of logical development, it can be seen as a deterministic, however, after these paradox is satisfactory, this argument may become certain. "If a person can eliminate the connotation paradox, he can get a clear 'heart is not a machine' certificate. About the" proof) The general concept of this general concept is with the 'concept' (Concept) this The general concept is similar, because we can't eliminate the contradictions around these general concepts. Otherwise, once we understand the proven this general concept, we have a certificate about its own consistency with your mind. Assume In this way, we can really export contradictions from this general concept from proven, including proof self-application. Our understanding of proven concept is incomplete, ... Some things are incompatible with our logical concept, this is Extremely obvious. "One of Gotel is that if we can gradually understand the general concept of certification, we can see a direct way (see) we can implement mathematical proof, the entire range is actually Consistent. Assuming this, different computers, mathematical intuition can be seen and can prove its own consistency. If you can use absolute proof as a concept, we can state and prove to it in a systematic approach. In particular, we will have the possibility of applying our superior mathematics to prove our own consistency. But this depends on whether we can eliminate connotation paradoxes, depend on we seek new higher-level new actions to get the grasp of abstract concepts such as "certification". Gotel has in 1946 (published in 1965) "Princeton 200th Anniversary Conference on Mathematics" and 1961 speech manuscript (published in 1995) Exploring this. Thoughts on various philosophy, Gotel admitted that the final solution of the heart-object problem depends on the further development of the entire science of brain physiology. "Many so-called philosophical problems are scientific issues, but there is often no scientific processing. For example, whether the heart is separated from the substance, and the philosopher will arise for this, so the philosophic function is one of the philosophical features. It is a guide to scientific research. "Gothic assertion," the brain is a computer connected to the spirit (spirit). "" There is always a day with the heart of the substance "this life will be scientific development facts. "In the later years, Godell even guess, to grasp (with the impression) abstraction, need to evolve enough physical organs, which must be closely connected to the central nervous of the language.
Moreover, as a prejudice in the times, mechanism in biology will be witnessed, and the ophthalmology is seen, "a negative approach is [establish] a mathematics theorem, mostly, according to physical laws (or in nature Other laws), starting from the random distribution of basic particles and field, forming a human body in the geological age in the geological age is a variety of [chemical] ingredients that are divided into its various [chemical] ingredients Almost. "... despite Gotel, the brain-computer, biology mechanism and more general heart-material problems have made many scientific bold guesses, but he admits that the current topics are like Demokley The Times is talking about atoms as the original. In addition to Platoism in mathematics, Gotel and Wang Hao discuss the most in the heart - brain - computer problem, that is, the relationship between cardiac. Gothe is so keen, because of the superiority of the heart, on the one hand, on the one hand, on the one hand, it can provide instructions for his Plato's mathematics. On the other hand, he opposes mechanical materialism and insists on rationalism. An important basis for viewing. Therefore, the unique solution of Gotel-Brain-Brain-Computer Problem is to understand his mathematics philosophy and the general world view to get a whole grasp.
