If you believe in free will, respond to these two objections

[PolyHedral]

One of the issues is that we can just make stuff up. What stops anyone from rejecting any of the influences we have with the stuff we can just make up. Thats part of what makes us illogical and therefore unpredictable.

Their own personality, which is very predictable.

 

[idav]

Their own personality, which is very predictable.

For a machine maybe. It would probably need some glitches where it has faulty memory causing it to sometime fail at being linear. We do that all the time and then kick ourselves later when we remember something that would have been crucial in an earlier decision. Suppression as well as making stuff up are nifty tricks in freeing your will.

 

[Nakosis]

One of the issues is that we can just make stuff up. What stops anyone from rejecting any of the influences we have with the stuff we can just make up. Thats part of what makes us illogical and therefore unpredictable.

Yes but determinism implies that everything we imagine has a causal chain. That seems to be true. As I've become aware of this concept, I can trace back different events in my life that influence how I currently think. Often at the time of making a particular decision, not even being aware of the event that influenced my thinking.

And people are kind of robotic. If something gets repeated over and over again it will integrate itself into people thinking. Become part of their programming.

Part of it is that we are not fully conscious of this process.

However yes some brains have developed a more critical process to accepting such input. Marketing is designed to make people think they need a product they don't really need. Whereas my wife will immediately "decide" whatever cooking gadget promoted by the last infomercial. I reject all marketing input as a matter of course.

While there maybe some genetics involved> I don't think I'm anymore gifted or smarter when it comes to being more critical as to what input I accept. I just think I've had different experience then my wife which "causes" me to think differently.

Still even me, I find that if I listen to talk radio over and over, with conservative stations I'll start becoming conservative in my thinking, with liberal station I'll start thinking liberally. A constant stream of input not consciously filtered.

 

[shawn001]

Because humans can imagine the world being other thin what it is and act according to the world as they've imagined it to be.

So not only do we have memories of actual experience to deal with in trying to predict human behavior but also memories of imagined experienced which we don't have full access to.

Hard to make accurate predictions when one doesn't have access to all the information which caused the behavior.

what do you mean here, you have access to your memories and there is the subconcious?

 

[shawn001]

So a helmet that allows one to communicate with God.

Funny at of all those posts and even the information on this and the specific part of the brain, that is your comment.

where did you get "allows one to communicate with God"?

 

[shawn001]

Could it learn to play chess?
Without some person altering it's programming?

Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM

 

[shawn001]

No, I'm not saying the violate the laws of physics, merely that they cannont be determined completely by the laws of physics. That is, because physics act on neurons at the local level, but the emergent structure cannot be reduced to local behavior, the structure is not determined by physics. Of course, this opens the question of "what does determine the structure" and "how, if the individual neurons obey completely the laws of physics, the emergent behavior cannot be determined by an entity like Laplace's demon?" I don't now, nor does any one else. I've read arguments for non-deterministic self-organization based on quantam mechanics, as well as refutations for such views. Then there are arguments based on a level of complexity we are incapable (at the moment) of understanding. There are plenty of papers and arguments concerning non-causal deterministic systems as well. Programmers have created neural networks capable of finding solutions or pattern recognition which reach levels of complexity such that the programmers can no longer determine how their own programs actually arrived at the solution.

Qm, even though we don't fully understand is "energy" and has to abide by the laws of physics, and there is still some physics of course to figure out with QM.

""LegionOnomaMoi

"That depends on how you define it. I do not believe that our decisions are completely determined by the physical laws of the universe."



Are you suggesting a "diety" is influencing your desicions, because we don't understand all the science yet?

" upper-level organisms can modify the physical and chemical laws governing their molecular constituents."

Modify what chemical and physical laws here?


Something can't be physical and not abide by the laws of physics.

Then you have the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorems.


State of the art on QM

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap

Join Brian Greene on a wild ride into the weird realm of quantum physics, which governs the universe on the tiniest of scales. Greene brings quantum mechanics to life in a nightclub like no other, where objects pop in and out of existence, and things over here can affect others over there, instantaneously and without anything crossing the space between them. A century ago, during the initial shots in the quantum revolution, the best minds of a generation—including Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr—squared off in a battle for the soul of physics. How could the rules of the quantum world, which work so well to describe the behavior of individual atoms and their components, conflict so dramatically with the everyday rules that govern people, planets, and galaxies?

[youtube]8eZqQUdWURs[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap - YouTube

 

[idav]

Still even me, I find that if I listen to talk radio over and over, with conservative stations I'll start becoming conservative in my thinking, with liberal station I'll start thinking liberally. A constant stream of input not consciously filtered.

We can reject our programming. The day a machine can tell us no and reject the programmer, I sure wouldn't give it the idea that it could. We learn to say "no" very early. There are also a few anomalies that will reject the brainwashing as well.

 

[PolyHedral]

We can reject our programming. .

Look deeper. There are very few concrete answers about constitutes the ultimate "programming" of a human, and I suspect, once you get down to it, it's impossible to reject.

 

[idav]

Look deeper. There are very few concrete answers about constitutes the ultimate "programming" of a human, and I suspect, once you get down to it, it's impossible to reject.

Hah, thats just the other 99.89 percent.

 

[Nakosis]

We can reject our programming. The day a machine can tell us no and reject the programmer, I sure wouldn't give it the idea that it could. We learn to say "no" very early. There are also a few anomalies that will reject the brainwashing as well.

I suspect that just means it can be overridden by superior programming.

I taught my kids at a very early age to say no. The wife is still upset about that but I thought that "independent" thinking was important. So they do. However I think the concept had to be implanted.

I think it was implanted in me by the culture of the 70's. It actually took a while to develop but once developed I transmitted to my kids. To them it's just part of how they think. It's their thinking even though I implanted the idea. I suspect they will further develop their thinking and perhaps implant new or, hopefully, better programming in their kids.

We want to accomplish something more efficiently/effectively. Certainly we can determine one type of programming/thinking is more effective then another. The brain is adaptable enough.

 

[Nakosis]

what do you mean here, you have access to your memories and there is the subconcious?

Like when I have dreams. I remember my dreams. While a dream may have no real connection with reality then can affect my mood/behavior.

Sometimes I don't remember my dreams I still wake up feeling angry for no reason.An angry person acts differently then a happy person.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

that's not what a step debugger is. a step debugger lets you run the programm step by step, while inspecting its state. you can watch it grab input, and how *exactly* it reacts to it and why.

Are you familiar with any of the literature on artificial neural networks (ANNs)which would merit your sarcastic response (not the one quoted above, but the previous one).

When discussing some general issues with ANNs in his book Neural Networks (a monograph in the series New Techologies for Social Research), Garson notes: "neural models lend themselves to prediction but not to causal analysis. It can be difficult to understand how neural nets arrive at their results. Systems designed thus far do not include the capacity of alternative techniques like expert systems to provide an audit trail fully explaining how the system arrived at its conclusions...The 'hidden layers' do more than conjure up a 'black box' imagery: the algorithms of neural analysis result in neural weights to which it is difficult to assign a causal interpretations."

Going even further, in a paper "Investigation of the determinism of complex dynamical systems using simple back propagation neural networks" (International Journal of Computer Mathematic, 2006), the authors attempt to provide solutions for state determination for a particular type of ANN which, while under some circumstances is deterministic, under others "no such statement can be directly asserted."

Neural networks do not rely on standard programming logic. They are designed so that they adapt, evolve, and alter their responses to input over time. They or nonlinear systems which utilize heirarchical internal feedback systems and often use fuzzy logic rather than the standard binary logic common to virtuall all other areas of programming. Entire books (or at least large sections of them) are devoted to the problem of figuring out how future states of ANNs (which are, after all, just a lot of lines of code) resulted from initial conditions. The number of such publications is increasing as the problem because to large to ignore. As Pozynak, Sanchez, and Yu put it "Nonlinear control is the hot topic of recent interest. Most of the publications use the assumption on the complete accessibility of states of the systems to be controlled. But in reality this is not always true. That is why the solution of the nonlinear state observation problem seems very important." -from Differential Neural Networks for Robust Nonlinear Control: Identification, State Estimation and Trajectory Tracking.

In other words, either your remark

"programmer, this is step debugger. step debugger, this is programmer.

I'll leave you two alone now, it seems you have a lot to catch up on..."

was just flippant/sarcastic for the sake of being humorous, but not intended to really make any comments on my post, or you aren't familiar with the topic you commented on, and you intended to convey your view that my statement was ridiculous (at least, those are the only interpretations I have). If the latter, then I would suggest that prior to writing off my statement as ludicrous, you read a big more on the algorithms, design, complexity, and difficulties involved in neural network programming.

my point was that if programmers don't know what their programs are doing -- and unless those programs interect a lot with user input or other programs, or have been written by large groups etc. -- that's just programmers loosing track, not non-deterministic programs.

It isn't. It's a result of adaptive multi-layered programs relying on complicated feedback systems which can become so complex that (as quoted above) they are not always deterministic, or at least they do not appear to be.



that's because you don't have complete knowledge of the city, and doesn't really mean that's a non-deterministic robot. "not predictable by our means" is not the same as "not predictable/non-deterministic".[/quote]

 

[shawn001]

Like when I have dreams. I remember my dreams. While a dream may have no real connection with reality then can affect my mood/behavior.

Sometimes I don't remember my dreams I still wake up feeling angry for no reason.An angry person acts differently then a happy person.

Dreams are physical! Dreams can dirupt your sleep and cause you to be moody. They know why an angry person acts differently then a happy person.

Dreams have connections to reality! Especially to your mental states and subconcious.

Dreams can be caused by your "mood/behavior" in part because of stressors.

Digestion can influence your dreams even.

Dreams are biological in orgin.

-----------------------------------

It use to be thought

Night Terrors: Demonic Attacks

The following phenomenon has its basis in the biochemistry of the brain, involving the limbic system, cerebellum and duodenum and the way that they are suppressed during sleep. An incorrect balance of neurone-controlling chemicals during sleep makes some people more susceptible to night terrors than others. They occur in the early night and "experiences of entrapment, of being choked or attacked, often with shrieking, sitting-up, or sleep-walking, and tremendous acceleration of the heart. [They become] more frequent when there is greater daytime anxiety; they are frequent among wartime battle evacuees and night terrors are commonly experienced by children aged 10-14"17. The human biologist McConnel describes a likely Night Terror:

“You begin to sense - deep down inside you - that something has gone very wrong. Slowly, almost dimly, you regain enough consciousness to realize that you are suffocating, that some heavy weight is lying on your chest and crushing your lungs. Suddenly you realize your breathing has almost stopped, and you are dying for air. Terrified, you scream! At once, you seem to awaken. There is this thing hovering over you, crushing the very life out of your lungs. You shout at the thing, but it won't leave you alone.
Despite a strange feeling of paralysis, you start to resist. Your pulse begins to race, your breathing becomes rapid, and you push futilely at the thing that is choking you to death. Your legs tremble, then begin to thrash about under the covers. You sweep the bedclothes aside, stumble to your feet, and flee into the darkness. You run clumsily through the house, trying to get from the thing.
And then, all at once, you find yourself in your living room. The lights come on, the thing instantly retreats to the shadows of your mind, and you are awake. You are safe now, but you are intensely wrought up and disturbed. You shake your head, wondering what has happened to you. You can remember that you were fleeing from the thing that was crushing you. But you have forgotten your scream and talking in your sleep. The thing dream is a classic example of a night terror.”
"Understanding Human Behavior" by James V. McConnel (1986)18
​

It is clear to see how such physiological events can be interpreted supernaturally by its victims!

“Before the physiological causes of these experiences was known, night terrors were interpreted as being the attacks of evil spirits. Others have experienced it as an alien abduction, an attempted possession or as the evil magic of medieval witches, along with all manner of other supernatural and paranormal explanations that have arose historically.”
"Nightmares and Night Terrors" by Vexen Crabtree (2005)
​

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism



If you look at look at OBEs


Out of Body Experiences
Out-of-body experiences were once poorly studied scientifically because of their purely psychological nature, but recent technological developments have allowed neurologists to study these types of states of consciousness. Scientists have been able to recreate situations in which out of body experiences occur in wide-awake individuals.

“Two sets of studies published independently in the same issue of the journal Science demonstrate how the illusion of a bodily self outside one's own body can be stimulated in the laboratory. The studies forge ways to better understand both out-of-body and near-death experiences. "The research provides a physical explanation for the phenomenon usually ascribed to otherworldly influences," Peter Bruger, a neurologist at University Hospital in Zurich who was not involved in the experiment, told science journalist Sandra Blakesee in her report on these experiments in The New York Times (August 24).” Kendrick Frazier in Skeptical Inquirer (2007)15
​

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591024811/vexencrabtree“Olaf Blanke and his colleagues report that they are able to bring about so-called out-of-body experiences (OBE), where a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the body, by electrical stimulation of a specific region in the brain. I have discussed OBE experiments in two books and have concluded that they provide no evidence for anything happening outside of the physical processes of the brain.” "God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)16
​

The two books by Prof. Victor Stenger on this subject, plus relevant page numbers, are:

1. Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World beyond the Senses (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990) p111.
2. Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003) p290-99.

Extensive research into cases of OBEs by skeptical scientists have shown that in all cases, details of the event have not produced anything that could not have been known by the patient. Experiments have included hidden symbols placed high up in rooms so that only through an OBE or other supernatural process could someone know what the symbol was. Simple tests like this have always demonstrated that what is 'seen' during an OBE is only ever what the patient already knew was there. This, combined with our neurological understanding of OBEs is conclusive proof that OBEs are purely psychological, with, as Prof Stenger says, "no evidence for anything happening outside of the physical processes of the brain".

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

 

[not nom]

It isn't. It's a result of adaptive multi-layered programs relying on complicated feedback systems which can become so complex that (as quoted above) they are not always deterministic, or at least they do not appear to be.

see? that's your best shot: they don't appear to be deterministic [but they still are]. in other words, what I said about our failure to predict not constituting lack of determinism, still holds. I appreciate the bluffing anyways.

and yes, I do actually know what I'm talking about -- yet I point out flaws in your conclusions. the mind, it boggles.

 

[shawn001]

Interaction: Vilayanur S Ramachandran
What is the physical trigger for belief?
When you have epileptic seizures originating in the temporal lobes of the brain, people become more prone to religious belief; seizures are conducive to religious beliefs, but that doesn't invalidate religion in any way. After all, religious sentiment originates in the brain...we think it comes from the temporal lobes. This doesn't detract from the spiritual dimensions of human life in any way. There is the theory that it evolved to confer stability on society and what better way to confer stability on society than through religious hierarchy with priesthood and all that? That's one theory but there's very little evidence of that.

Is God-realisation a physical rather than mental experience?
Ultimately it has to be physical because it is in the brain and the brain is made of physical matter; this is where religious feelings arise. But even matter these days has become so insubstantial; people talk about string theory, quantum mechanics - the notion of cause and effect breaks down and we're talking about quantum coupling and so on. I'm not a physicist but what it suggests is that what we think is real (like a table, for instance) may not be so...we may make a distinction between the parallel realm of spirituality and the world of physical matter, but these boundaries are dissolving.

Mythology, culture and faith - Times Of India

If you take the brain down below atoms, to subatomic particles you at one point get to QM and energy down the line. There reality is a much different place, but still physical.

 

[shawn001]

This is way cool just in general and illusions.

Likewise, in quantum mechanics, the result of state reduction depends on the sort of measurement we elect to make. A more revealing test of different percepts is the Spinning Dancer, created by Web designer Nobuyuki Kayahara ( “The Spinning Dancer,” 2010). Because it depicts a woman dancing, the picture appeals to the artistic hemisphere (right hemisphere); therefore, most people originally perceive the dancer spinning clockwise. However, if one starts reading some sentences, activating the reading hemisphere (left hemisphere), one perceives the dancer spinning counterclockwise. Alternatively, if one turns his head so that the picture moves to the left visual field (seen by right hemisphere), the dancer starts to spin clockwise. And if we think about something serious (activating the thinker hemisphere), we perceive that the dancer changing her spin to counterclockwise.

Quantum Perception - Illusions

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

see? that's your best shot: they don't appear to be deterministic [but they still are].

Let's break this down. First, my initial words were:

Programmers have created neural networks capable of finding solutions or pattern recognition which reach levels of complexity such that the programmers can no longer determine how their own programs actually arrived at the solution.

I said nothing about these programs being non-deterministic. You responded with a sarcastic comment, and then explained (or expanded on) that comment as follows:

that's not what a step debugger is. a step debugger lets you run the programm step by step, while inspecting its state. you can watch it grab input, and how *exactly* it reacts to it and why.

my point was that if programmers don't know what their programs are doing -- and unless those programs interect a lot with user input or other programs, or have been written by large groups etc. -- that's just programmers loosing track, not non-deterministic programs.

The problem is, you are simply wrong. You can't simply run these programs step by step, you can't simply "watch it grab input" or know "how *exactly* it reacts to it and why" nor is the issue just "programmers loosing track." All of your comments on why the ANN programmers can't track the trajectories of their programs were simply incorrect.

2) I believe that all the ANNs (barring some kind of quantam issue) that have been designed are at least ontologically deterministic and almost certainly epistemically deterministic as well, given the right tools. However, the paper I cited from the International Journal of Computer Mathematics does not say that they "appear to be indeterministic, but in reality they are really deterministic." Rather, the authors state that one cannot say that the behavior of certain ANNs are deterministic. Not that they don't "appear" to be deterministic, but that we don't have the evidence to back the assertion that they are deterministic.

in other words, what I said about our failure to predict not constituting lack of determinism, still holds. I appreciate the bluffing anyways.

Hardly, as 1) I never said ANNs are not deterministic and 2) the issue with your statement wasn't about "failure to predict" but about "step debugging" and watching exactly how a program behaves, statements which were completely inaccurate.

and yes, I do actually know what I'm talking about

So you are familiar with current algorithms used in ANNs and the techniques used to understand state transitions and trajectory tracking?

 

[not nom]

The problem is, you are simply wrong. You can't simply run these programs step by step, you can't simply "watch it grab input" or know "how *exactly* it reacts to it and why" nor is the issue just "programmers loosing track." All of your comments on why the ANN programmers can't track the trajectories of their programs were simply incorrect.

I simply said it's because it's too complex for a human to keep in the brain all at once, but that doesn't mean it can't be stepped through. you're not really denying that, are you.

2) I believe that all the ANNs (barring some kind of quantam issue) that have been designed are at least ontologically deterministic and almost certainly epistemically deterministic as well, given the right tools. However, the paper I cited from the International Journal of Computer Mathematics does not say that they "appear to be indeterministic, but in reality they are really deterministic." Rather, the authors state that one cannot say that the behavior of certain ANNs are deterministic. Not that they don't "appear" to be deterministic, but that we don't have the evidence to back the assertion that they are deterministic.

turing machines usually work in a deterministic fashion unless some non-deterministic element is introduced. I mean, even probabilistic stuff gets the randomness in a deterministic way if you will: "if schrödingers cat is alive do X, otherwise do Y" -- you cannot predict what will happen, but the randomness comes from the entropy fed into the algorithm, not from the algorithm itself. and non-deterministic turning machines are a thought experiment, so I doubt anyone is running neural nets on them, even if they're head researchers of the university of the emperor of china.

"we haven't found evidence for it to be deterministic" doesn't equal "we have found even just the slightest indication that it isn't", either, so I find all of that kinda misleading. hence my sarcastic remark... so you don't really think they're non-deterministic, you just enjoy the mystique of hinting at that they might be... lol?

So you are familiar with current algorithms used in ANNs and the techniques used to understand state transitions and trajectory tracking?

no, not much beyond the basics, but unless they run on some kind of freaky new CPU nobody told me about, that's hardly relevant. it's kinda like I know whatever you build from LEGO blocks, no matter how it looks, it will be plastic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I simply said it's because it's too complex for a human to keep in the brain all at once, but that doesn't mean it can't be stepped through. you're not really denying that, are you.

That isn't what you "simply" said:

"programmer, this is step debugger. step debugger, this is programmer.

I'll leave you two alone now, it seems you have a lot to catch up on..."

that's not what a step debugger is. a step debugger lets you run the programm step by step, while inspecting its state. you can watch it grab input, and how *exactly* it reacts to it and why.

The term "step debugger"and the idea of running a complex ANN "step by step" have nothing to do with ANN's, nor is it possible to use a step debugger or to go through the program step by step and anyone with even a BASIC familiarity with neural network programming would know that. Instead of bothering to check up on what I was talking about, you posted your flippant response and then made it worse by exapanding on it, continuing to apply concepts from programming in general which don't apply here.

ANNs do not use explicit algorithms which allow one to run the program step by step. Every time a complex ANN is run, the input neurons communicate with perhaps multiple hidden layers of neurons until the information reaches the output neurons and a final response. Each run results in an adjusting of weights according to the intial complex nonlinear algorithms. However, the code never specificies how the weights are adjusted after or during each run, nor is it possible to "stop" the program and "see" what connections led to this or that weight change or this or that final output.

Before you make anymore claims such as

and yes, I do actually know what I'm talking about

make sure you do. Because you continue to apply traditional programming logic to a field designed specifically to avoid that "step-by-step" process, and our inability to know the system trajectory in some cases, or to know how the result was derived, has nothing to do with programmers being unable to "step through" the code. And while your debugger approach is standard just about everywhere else in programming, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know it doesn't work here, and you wouldn't have made reference to step debebugging.

turing machines usually work in a deterministic fashion unless some non-deterministic element is introduced.

Again, this only demonstrates that you are completely unfamiliar with artificial neural network programming, but rather than retract the rude comments you made you'd prefer to just dig yourself a deeper grave.

First, an actual "turing machine" requires and infinite length of tape, and one of the points (or results) was to strike another blow against Hilberts dream (which Turing did using Cantor's diagonal infinite proof method). But more importantly, "Turing machines" outside of the theoretical concept and even within Turing's paper use formal and linear (which does not exclude loops) logic. ANN's are fundamentally different and deliberately so. They began within cognitive science and AI research after classical computing methods failed to create programs which could learn, adapt, and evolve in the way hoped.

Unlike other programs, even extremely complex ones, ANNs are designed to "write" their own code in a sense. They adapt to input in highly complex ways making it impossible for the programmer to always know how or why certain changes in weights resulted or why the output was what it was, and also to run through these changes "step-by-step" to find the answer.

This isn't saying that they are indeterministic (although again, that has been suggested), but it does mean that your mocking comments about how it's just a matter of using a step-by-step debugging approach means you don't understand how ANNs work.

"we haven't found evidence for it to be deterministic" doesn't equal "we have found even just the slightest indication that it isn't", either, so I find all of that kinda misleading. hence my sarcastic remark...

Only that isn't what I said:

in a paper "Investigation of the determinism of complex dynamical systems using simple back propagation neural networks" (International Journal of Computer Mathematic, 2006), the authors attempt to provide solutions for state determination for a particular type of ANN which, while under some circumstances is deterministic, under others "no such statement can be directly asserted."

If they say "under these circumstances it is deterministic, but under these we can't assert that it is" (which is exactly what they say) than yes, that does equal "we have found even just the slightest indication that it isn't." The whole reason to bring up determinism of this type of ANN was to note how under certain conditions it is deterministic, and under others that can't be said. If it can't be said, then they can't say that for a reason.

so you don't really think they're non-deterministic, you just enjoy the mystique of hinting at that they might be... lol?

I think the fact that we can now create programs which are so complex we have difficulty (and are sometimes unable) to understand how our own code evolved and adapted as it did, when these programs do not even get close to the complexity of the "mind" (and lack self-awareness, something we aren't even close to being able to exaplain), should give us cause to think that perhaps the view of the universe which has dominated human thought until it began to change in the 20th century is not accurate. Perhaps, given our tools to understand nonlinear system, and the fact that our focus is on solutions (rather than understanding why we can't explain what we can't explain), a causally deterministic view of the mind is inadequate.

no, not much beyond the basics, but unless they run on some kind of freaky new CPU nobody told me about, that's hardly relevant.

Given your mocking "step-by-step" solution to the problem faced by experts in mathematics, computer science, cognitive science, etc., you'd think that either they'd have figured out all they had to do was use debugging techniques everyone else has for the past several decades, or it is relevant and you don't know what you are talking about.