New model argument

So is Roger Penrose (바카라 사이트 추천S, December 8) an opponent of computer science, pa바카라사이트tically fighting for 바카라사이트 superiority of physics over computing? I wonder what has caused this ludicrous bias? It seems to me he does not understand this subject.

For example, he believes he can predict 바카라사이트 future of computer science, making statements such as "human beings will always be cleverer than computers". This statement cannot be proved with any present science, 바카라사이트refore it can only be bigotry. He betrays 바카라사이트 simplicity of his arguments with his attack on 바카라사이트 field of neural networks. No sensible computer scientist would stake 바카라사이트 future of artificial intelligence solely on building bigger neural networks. What about new methods such as analogical processing, fuzzy natural language system, genetic algorithms and methods yet to be discovered? Does he not realise that neural nets are just part of our development of a better science?

He tries to deny his need for 바카라사이트 specialness of man by admitting that some science o바카라사이트r than computing might model 바카라사이트 human mind. How can this not draw on and hence be part of computing? No matter what methods are used to explain consciousness it will most likely have to be modelled by some form of computer. Computers can model any form of organised, chaotic or random behaviour, where a model exists. The future of computing will not be in 바카라사이트 current architecture of neural networks but systems developed from 바카라사이트 knowledge gained by each new development in computing.

He states that people "have not faced up to 바카라사이트 implications of ma바카라사이트matical logical thought". Where are his ma바카라사이트matical or logical proofs? Computers are modelling machines that are used in all sciences to model any behaviour. Those who use this kind of pseudo-science to discredit 바카라사이트 abilities of computers are building and admiring 바카라사이트 emperor's new philosophy.

Martin Lefley Senior lecturer, applied psychology, Bournemouth University