Design patterns

Discussion in 'C++' started by tanix, Dec 26, 2009.

  1. tanix

    tanix Guest

    I just read one article here about patterns
    and it made me shiver.

    Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
    by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
    can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
    as you can manage?

    Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 26, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tanix

    Guest

    On Dec 26, 10:07 am, (tanix) wrote:
    > I just read one article here about patterns
    > and it made me shiver.
    >
    > Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
    > by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
    > can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
    > as you can manage?
    >
    > Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?
    >
    > --
    > Programmer's Goldmine collections:
    >
    > http://preciseinfo.org
    >
    > Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    > C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    > organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.


    You sound like a troll.

    Certain design patterns are useful tools for solving certain
    programming problems. I use them as I see fit.
    , Dec 26, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <>, "" <> wrote:
    >On Dec 26, 10:07=A0am, (tanix) wrote:
    >> I just read one article here about patterns
    >> and it made me shiver.
    >>
    >> Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
    >> by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
    >> can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
    >> as you can manage?
    >>
    >> Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Programmer's Goldmine collections:
    >>
    >> http://preciseinfo.org
    >>
    >> Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    >> C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    >> organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

    >
    >You sound like a troll.


    And THAT is how you START?

    >Certain design patterns are useful tools for solving certain
    >programming problems.


    :--}

    > I use them as I see fit.


    :--}

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 26, 2009
    #3
  4. tanix

    MiB Guest

    Selecting design pattern(s) for an application is a delicate process.
    On a more macroscopic level, it requires in-depth analysis similar to
    selecting an algorithm for solving a problem.

    In order to make an educated choice, in both cases you need to know a
    number of alternatives, i.e. strong points and drawbacks of design
    patterns for the task at hand as well as you need this for algorithms.
    I did not check the web site you gave, but I assume its a kind of
    collection or catalog of design patterns - of course it is not a good
    idea to stick in design patterns into writing an application
    indiscriminately but a catalog is a good knowledge base for not having
    to invent the wheel over and over again.

    best,

    MiB
    MiB, Dec 26, 2009
    #4
  5. tanix

    James Kanze Guest

    On Dec 26, 3:07 pm, (tanix) wrote:
    > I just read one article here about patterns and it made me
    > shiver.


    > Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue by first
    > looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you can
    > find and then try to stick as many of them into your code, as
    > you can manage?


    Maybe some are, but I've not encountered any. I have
    encountered a lot of programmers who prefer reinventing known
    solutions rather than using existing ones. In the end, using
    design patterns is just using a common language for talking
    about existing solutions, so you don't have to reinvent known
    solutions each time around. (The common vocabulary is extremely
    useful for documentation purposes.)

    > Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?


    The central idea about modern programming techniques is to
    produce error free, maintainable software as cheaply as
    possible. Using known solutions, when applicable, is an
    effective technique for that.

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Dec 26, 2009
    #5
  6. tanix

    Jonathan Lee Guest

    On Dec 26, 10:07 am, (tanix) wrote:
    > Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
    > by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
    > can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
    > as you can manage?
    >
    > Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?


    Absolutely. In fact, for my undergrad thesis I'm working on a
    "problem description language" that will take your problem/goal
    and re-express it in design patterns. It will then write the
    program by mechanically applying the design patterns.

    But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    pattern for the above problem?

    --Jonathan
    Jonathan Lee, Dec 26, 2009
    #6
  7. tanix

    Stefan Ram Guest

    Stefan Ram, Dec 26, 2009
    #7
  8. Stefan Ram wrote:
    > Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >> pattern for the above problem?

    >
    > Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
    >

    Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    , too...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    be creative...

    Greets

    --
    http://maxa.homedns.org/
    Branimir Maksimovic, Dec 26, 2009
    #8
  9. On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    > Stefan Ram wrote:
    > > Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    > >> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    > >> pattern for the above problem?

    >
    > >   Sure, just implement it as a GPS.

    >
    > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

    >
    > Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    > algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    > It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    > , too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    > That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    > Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    > be creative...


    Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

    This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    evolution by natural selection. Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
    does a remarkably good job describing evolution by natural selection,
    specifically how evolution by natural selection may be the only known
    natural process which creates information in a local open system, the
    only process which creates information which is not intelligent
    design. "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

    Throw on a couple good books of information theory and entropy for
    good measure.

    On the flip side, who ever proved that humans are "creative"? Or any
    moreso than a really good computer AI (which has not yet been made)?
    Joshua Maurice, Dec 27, 2009
    #9
  10. Joshua Maurice wrote:
    > On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >> Stefan Ram wrote:
    >>> Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >>>> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >>>> pattern for the above problem?
    >>> Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

    >> Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    >> algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    >> It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    >> , too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    >> That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    >> Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    >> be creative...

    >
    > Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    > the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    > or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    > simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.


    I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
    Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
    Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
    on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
    but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
    unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
    This is mathematical fact....

    >
    > This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    > evolution by natural selection.



    > Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth


    What does this topic have to do with evolution?

    Greets

    --
    http://maxa.homedns.org/
    Branimir Maksimovic, Dec 27, 2009
    #10
  11. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <>, MiB <> wrote:
    >Selecting design pattern(s) for an application is a delicate process.
    >On a more macroscopic level, it requires in-depth analysis similar to
    >selecting an algorithm for solving a problem.
    >
    >In order to make an educated choice, in both cases you need to know a
    >number of alternatives, i.e. strong points and drawbacks of design
    >patterns for the task at hand as well as you need this for algorithms.
    >I did not check the web site you gave, but I assume its a kind of
    >collection or catalog of design patterns - of course it is not a good
    >idea to stick in design patterns into writing an application
    >indiscriminately but a catalog is a good knowledge base for not having
    >to invent the wheel over and over again.


    Well, I am not against the design patterns in principle.

    But what I DO see all over the place is a literal obscession.
    That web page used two design patterns for a single thing.
    I do not argue whether it IS the way to go or not.

    But that looked like an extremism to me, just from glancing at it.

    >best,


    > MiB


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #11
  12. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <>, James Kanze <> wrote:
    >On Dec 26, 3:07 pm, (tanix) wrote:
    >> I just read one article here about patterns and it made me
    >> shiver.

    >
    >> Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue by first
    >> looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you can
    >> find and then try to stick as many of them into your code, as
    >> you can manage?

    >
    >Maybe some are, but I've not encountered any. I have
    >encountered a lot of programmers who prefer reinventing known
    >solutions rather than using existing ones. In the end, using
    >design patterns is just using a common language for talking
    >about existing solutions, so you don't have to reinvent known
    >solutions each time around. (The common vocabulary is extremely
    >useful for documentation purposes.)
    >
    >> Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

    >
    >The central idea about modern programming techniques is to
    >produce error free, maintainable software as cheaply as
    >possible. Using known solutions, when applicable, is an
    >effective technique for that.


    Thanx God!
    I started feeling I am in a dreamland.
    :--}

    >--
    >James Kanze


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #12
  13. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <-berlin.de>, -berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
    >Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >>But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >>pattern for the above problem?

    >
    > Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver


    I like this one:

    "While GPS solved simple problems such as the Towers of Hanoi that could be
    sufficiently formalized, it could not solve any real-world problems because
    search was easily lost in the combinatorial explosion of intermediate states."

    And that is EXACTLY what that French professor said
    about 20 years ago if I recall correctly.
    :--}

    "combinatorial EXPLOSION".
    Nothing less.

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #13
  14. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <hh5q24$vpm$>, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >Stefan Ram wrote:
    >> Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >>> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >>> pattern for the above problem?

    >>
    >> Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
    >>

    >Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    >algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.


    Yep.

    >It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    >, too...
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    >That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    >Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    >be creative...


    Correct.

    >Greets


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #14
  15. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <>, Joshua Maurice <> wrote:
    >On Dec 26, 3:01=A0pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >> Stefan Ram wrote:
    >> > Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >> >> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >> >> pattern for the above problem?

    >>
    >> > =A0 Sure, just implement it as a GPS.

    >>
    >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

    >>
    >> Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    >> algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    >> It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    >> , too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theore=

    >ms
    >> That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    >> Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    >> be creative...

    >
    >Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    >the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    >or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    >simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.
    >
    >This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    >evolution by natural selection. Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
    >does a remarkably good job describing evolution by natural selection,
    >specifically how evolution by natural selection may be the only known
    >natural process which creates information in a local open system, the
    >only process which creates information which is not intelligent
    >design. "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
    >
    >Throw on a couple good books of information theory and entropy for
    >good measure.


    How bout this one:

    "There are no closed systems. So the issue of entropy does not apply".

    >On the flip side, who ever proved that humans are "creative"? Or any
    >moreso than a really good computer AI (which has not yet been made)?


    AI is just a myth.
    How can you possibly create an ARTIFICIAN intelligence
    if you don't even know how natural, and that is biological,
    intelligence "works"?

    AI is simply trying to copycat that, which alredy exists
    in biological world.

    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #15
  16. tanix

    Jonathan Lee Guest

    On Dec 26, 9:47 pm, (tanix) wrote:
    > >But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    > >pattern for the above problem?

    >
    > :--}
    >
    > Well, unfortunatly I do not have a reference to the article
    > by that French professor and I am not sure it is going to be
    > as encouraging for your trip, as you might expect otherwise.


    It's OK; I have a design pattern for changing my expectations.

    --Jonathan
    Jonathan Lee, Dec 27, 2009
    #16
  17. On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    > Joshua Maurice wrote:
    > > On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    > >> Stefan Ram wrote:
    > >>> Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    > >>>> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    > >>>> pattern for the above problem?
    > >>>   Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
    > >> Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    > >> algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    > >> It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    > >> , too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    > >> That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    > >> Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    > >> be creative...

    >
    > > Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    > > the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    > > or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    > > simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

    >
    > I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
    > Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
    > Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
    > on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
    > but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
    > unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
    > This is mathematical fact....


    Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this? I
    disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
    cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
    on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
    reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.

    Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
    Test? What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy
    in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
    millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
    intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
    the system and the constituent parts?

    All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.

    > > This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    > > evolution by natural selection.
    > > Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth

    >
    > What does this topic have to do with evolution?


    Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
    algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
    makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
    world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
    explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
    to be.
    Joshua Maurice, Dec 27, 2009
    #17
  18. Joshua Maurice wrote:
    > On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >> Joshua Maurice wrote:
    >>> On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >>>> Stefan Ram wrote:
    >>>>> Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >>>>>> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >>>>>> pattern for the above problem?
    >>>>> Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
    >>>> Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    >>>> algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    >>>> It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    >>>> , too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    >>>> That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    >>>> Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    >>>> be creative...
    >>> Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    >>> the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    >>> or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    >>> simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

    >> I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
    >> Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
    >> Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
    >> on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
    >> but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
    >> unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
    >> This is mathematical fact....

    >
    > Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this?


    http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/mathematical_logic.html
    http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/second_order_logic.html


    I
    > disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
    > cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
    > on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
    > reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.
    >
    > Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
    > Test?


    Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
    problem. Therefore, if it is algorithm, it should be algorithm
    that produces algorithm to solve particular problem.
    So result would be algorithm. But since there is no algorithm
    to proof validity of second order logic formulas, solution
    is not based on algorithm, rather on intuition.

    What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy
    > in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
    > millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
    > intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
    > the system and the constituent parts?
    >
    > All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.
    >
    >>> This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    >>> evolution by natural selection.
    >>> Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth

    >> What does this topic have to do with evolution?

    >
    > Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
    > algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
    > makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
    > world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
    > explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
    > to be.


    I think that atheists are deluded by algorithmic machines into believing
    that brain is such machine. From that point of view atheists are just
    another form of religion, which leads science in wrong direction.

    Greets

    --
    http://maxa.homedns.org/
    Branimir Maksimovic, Dec 27, 2009
    #18
  19. tanix

    tanix Guest

    In article <hh7bu9$urq$>, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >Joshua Maurice wrote:
    >> On Dec 26, 7:35 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >>> Joshua Maurice wrote:
    >>>> On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >>>>> Stefan Ram wrote:
    >>>>>> Jonathan Lee <> writes:
    >>>>>>> But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
    >>>>>>> pattern for the above problem?
    >>>>>> Sure, just implement it as a GPS.
    >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver
    >>>>> Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
    >>>>> algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
    >>>>> It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
    >>>>> ,

    > too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
    >>>>> That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
    >>>>> Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
    >>>>> be creative...
    >>>> Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
    >>>> the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
    >>>> or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
    >>>> simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.
    >>> I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
    >>> Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
    >>> Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
    >>> on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
    >>> but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
    >>> unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
    >>> This is mathematical fact....

    >>
    >> Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this?

    >
    >http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/mathematical_logic.html
    >http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/second_order_logic.html
    >
    >
    > I
    >> disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
    >> cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
    >> on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
    >> reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.
    >>
    >> Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
    >> Test?

    >
    >Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
    >problem.


    Sorry, I'd like to stay away from this, but can not.

    Intelligence is NOT, and never EVER will be
    "a capability to find algorithm to solve some problem"

    This is the HIGHER order insult to Intelligence.

    That is ALL I am interested in saying or even seeing
    in THIS grade of crap.

    Enough.

    >Therefore, if it is algorithm, it should be algorithm
    >that produces algorithm to solve particular problem.
    >So result would be algorithm. But since there is no algorithm
    >to proof validity of second order logic formulas, solution
    >is not based on algorithm, rather on intuition.
    >
    > What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy
    >> in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
    >> millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
    >> intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
    >> the system and the constituent parts?
    >>
    >> All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.
    >>
    >>>> This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
    >>>> evolution by natural selection.
    >>>> Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
    >>> What does this topic have to do with evolution?

    >>
    >> Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
    >> algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
    >> makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
    >> world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
    >> explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
    >> to be.

    >
    >I think that atheists are deluded by algorithmic machines into believing
    >that brain is such machine. From that point of view atheists are just
    >another form of religion, which leads science in wrong direction.
    >
    >Greets
    >


    --
    Programmer's Goldmine collections:

    http://preciseinfo.org

    Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
    C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
    organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
    tanix, Dec 27, 2009
    #19
  20. tanix wrote:
    > In article <hh7bu9$urq$>, Branimir Maksimovic <> wrote:
    >> Joshua Maurice wrote:
    >>> Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
    >>> Test?

    >> Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
    >> problem.

    >
    > Sorry, I'd like to stay away from this, but can not.
    >
    > Intelligence is NOT, and never EVER will be
    > "a capability to find algorithm to solve some problem"
    >
    > This is the HIGHER order insult to Intelligence.
    >
    > That is ALL I am interested in saying or even seeing
    > in THIS grade of crap.
    >
    > Enough.
    >


    Enough. ;)
    What a impressive argument!

    Greets

    --
    http://maxa.homedns.org/
    Branimir Maksimovic, Dec 27, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Josh28
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Josh28
    Nov 29, 2004
  2. Siz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,061
    Catherine Lowery
    Dec 12, 2004
  3. crichmon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
    Mabden
    Jul 7, 2004
  4. Tim Smith
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    841
    Tim Smith
    Dec 15, 2004
  5. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    581
Loading...

Share This Page