Simulating thoughts
In computer science, if A and B are models of computation (in layman terms, two computers) so that A can simulate B and thus do anything that B can do, A is considered to be a more powerful model of computation than B.
It turns out that a surprisingly simple models of computation, e.g. the classic Turing machine, are in principle able to simulate any other computer, which in turn can simulate each other. So the only difference between any two real-world computers is how much speed and memory they have. Other than that, whatever one of them can do, so can the other, if we ignore the time needed and assume that we stay within the confines of memory of both machines. Of course, speed differences are meaningful in real-world problems, since after a certain point, pretty much any quantitative difference turns qualitative. A film shown in speed 1 frame/second is very different from a film shown 24 frames/second, and a chess computer that can analyze the game one move ahead in time allotted is very different from a computer that can analyze the game 24 moves ahead.
I once wondered about whether this simulation logic could also be applied to humans. For example, a person with an IQ of 150 is able to very convincingly simulate and mimic a person with an IQ of 50, especially in a Turing test where all communication is done with text over a network terminal. But such simulation is not possible the other way around. So could we conclude from this that the person with an IQ of 150 is somehow objectively "higher" or "better" than a person with an IQ of 50, the same way we conclude that somebody who can bench press 300 pounds is objectively "stronger" than somebody who can bench press only 100 pounds. After all, the former can pretend to be able to bench press only 100 pounds but no more, but that latter cannot pretend that he is able to bench press 300 pounds, but is revealed as soon as somebody asks for a demonstration?
It turns out that a surprisingly simple models of computation, e.g. the classic Turing machine, are in principle able to simulate any other computer, which in turn can simulate each other. So the only difference between any two real-world computers is how much speed and memory they have. Other than that, whatever one of them can do, so can the other, if we ignore the time needed and assume that we stay within the confines of memory of both machines. Of course, speed differences are meaningful in real-world problems, since after a certain point, pretty much any quantitative difference turns qualitative. A film shown in speed 1 frame/second is very different from a film shown 24 frames/second, and a chess computer that can analyze the game one move ahead in time allotted is very different from a computer that can analyze the game 24 moves ahead.
I once wondered about whether this simulation logic could also be applied to humans. For example, a person with an IQ of 150 is able to very convincingly simulate and mimic a person with an IQ of 50, especially in a Turing test where all communication is done with text over a network terminal. But such simulation is not possible the other way around. So could we conclude from this that the person with an IQ of 150 is somehow objectively "higher" or "better" than a person with an IQ of 50, the same way we conclude that somebody who can bench press 300 pounds is objectively "stronger" than somebody who can bench press only 100 pounds. After all, the former can pretend to be able to bench press only 100 pounds but no more, but that latter cannot pretend that he is able to bench press 300 pounds, but is revealed as soon as somebody asks for a demonstration?
Objectively more capable is the best phrasing, methinks.
Posted by Glaivester | 11:58 PM
the same way we conclude that somebody who can bench press 300 pounds is objectively "stronger" than somebody who can bench press only 100 pounds. After all, the former can pretend to be able to bench press only 100 pounds but no more, but that latter cannot pretend that he is able to bench press 300 pounds, but is revealed as soon as somebody asks for a demonstration?
Where do you classify the "It's All You Man" morons seen in any gym? In other words, the sort who bench press what would be impressive amounts, but for the fact that their spotters are pulling up on the bars with all their strength during the entire rep. They'll of course brag to everyone they know that they can "bench 300" (or whatever amount), and in many cases will end up scoring because of it, when in reality they couldn't manage clean reps at anything close to 300.
Posted by Anonymous | 11:24 PM
Doing "negatives" is an established way of excercise. A lot of people do negatives like once every few weeks. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ridgely3.htm
Posted by Tiedemies | 10:13 AM
Yes, I know about negatives, but it's an extremely safe bet that the vast majority of the "It's All You Man" morons think they're doing normal reps. Or want to think they're doing normal reps. Many of them also can be seen doing leg presses with huge weights and a three-inch range of motion.
Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights
Posted by Anonymous | 12:43 PM