Author |
Topic: Revenge of the Right Brain (Read 2746 times) |
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
 |
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #1 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 1:27am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Gah..
The extreme polarization between the left/right-brain distinction really irks me. Not all logic/rational thoughts are done by the left brain, nor creativity/emotion by the right. All functions are shared by both halves, and if you loose a hemisphere, though probably impaired, you can still function both rationally and emotionally.
Obviously he's not past 'left-brain' thinking that reduces everything to either/or instead of 'a little bit of both'. Must be one of those people that only uses 10% of his brain, rather than all of it like normal people..
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 28th, 2005, 1:37am by towr » |
 IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #2 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 1:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think the key point of the article is not so much which part of the brain does what, but rather, that creativity will be more valued in the future.
|
|
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #3 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 1:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Sure, but it really irks me nonetheless.
Of course, at certain times in the past, creativity, artistry, was also much more valued. There's nothing new under the sun..
There will again come a time in the future where rationality is more favored.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #4 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 1:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
Note however that one of the reasons analytic ability will be valued less in the future is due to automation. Why should we value people who can do proofs when computers can also do proofs?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 28th, 2005, 5:05am by amichail » |
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #5 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 3:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
Why should we value people that are creative when computers can also be creative?
It's coming in so far it isn't here yet, and it's already here already up to a point..
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #6 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 3:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
If you look at the AI literature, there's a lot more on solving analytic problems than creative ones.
Creativity is also a bit ill-defined, so I suspect that might keep AI researchers away from it for a while.
|
|
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #7 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 4:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
As I said, it already exist up to a point. Ranging from things like chipdesign, to music and even painting.
The point is, there is no great left-right divide. You can't make interesting proofs without some creativity. Even the kind of proofs that computers often have some creative combinations of theorems and rules. You can get there by trial and error, as computers most likely do, or using heuristics, or things like evolutionary computing. But it is in a real sense creative, making new things from old things, in unexpected ways.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #8 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 4:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think there is a distinction between creativity for solving well-defined problems (e.g., proving theorems) and creativity required for more open-ended problems (e.g., a painting).
Yes, there has been some research on such things as painting and music composition. However, I think such research is not as far along as more well-defined analytic problems such as theorem proving say.
In any case, my interest in this topic stems from creativity in more applied computer science research. In particular, I would like to see new applications unlike anything that we have seen before.
For some reason, much of the existing CS research is very analytic. More creative contributions are often not rewarded as much. Just look at the top conferences/journals.
|
|
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #9 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 4:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
That's because open-ended creativeness in CS is unlikely to result in marketable products. Things like library sort or using binary search on unsorted arrays are fun to play with, but they are not very practical.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2276
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #11 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 4:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 1:47am, amichail wrote:| Why should we value people who can do proofs when computer can also do proofs? |
|
I would say that we value people who can do proofs that computers cannot.
IMHO, computers still can prove only very limited set of (relatively simple) theorems, and it looks like the situation won't change drastically in the future.
Besides, analytic activity may also be very creative (or maybe, ingenious is a better word?)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2873
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #12 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 7:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 1:47am, amichail wrote:| Note however that one of the reasons analytic ability will be valued less in the future is due to automation. Why should we value people who can do proofs when computers can also do proofs? |
|
Because there's two aspects to a proof - the manipulation of facts to establish a valid conclusion, and the choice of facts and manipulations to pursue - there are examples on this forum of puzzles whose solution requires a moment of insight in order to start on the right track - for instance, the lower bound for the n-dimensional variant in the Erik's Puzzle thread in the Hard forum is painfuly obvious with hindsight, but I spent months thining about the problem (part-time) and never came close. Someone else spotted that the boundary is non-increasing, and from there the proof's a one-liner.
Yes, a computer could be programmed to take into account any given approach that has worked in the past, but you still need someone to originate those approaches originally - until someone comes up with a computer capable of that sort of intuitive leap, you'll still need humans to work on proofs. Maybe the intuitions that go into proofs can be largely replaced by work-arounds like an exhaustive search of a list of possible approaches, but a lot of the creativity that goes into art can also be replaced - 25-30 years ago, computers were being used to generate abstract images that are qualitatively indistinguishable from some genuine works by an artist whose name escapes me (the difference being that they're works "in the style of" rather than in an original style, but look at the Pop charts...)
Mind you, I'm not convinced that the average man on the street values people who can do proofs anyway...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #13 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 10:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
I thought it was an interesting article, and in fairness he did make it clear that the brain worked "in concert", with both sides being responsible for functionality. I felt he was using the notions of "left-sided" and "right-sided" as a metaphor for ideals.
But I'd agree with you, rmsgrey: there is a fundamental difference between applied and pure mathematicians. Because so many higher education courses utlilise mathematics, most people equate these graduates with "mathematicians" or "scientists".
In truth, they are applied scientists and the future of their sciences depends on the brilliance of those strange and rare creatures that are able to work in abstract concepts and then relay this to others in a practical context. Most research scientists/mathematicians produce nothing of lasting signficance. Maybe in the future, computers could be programmed to emulate this type of work, but I doubt if a computer would ever dare to take everything it had been taught and constructively consider the hypothesis, "But if that isn't true..."
Of all the art, poetry, or music ever produced, is there any greater measure of creativity than a real mathematician at work?
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #14 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 3:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 1:47am, amichail wrote:| Why should we value people who can do proofs when computers can also do proofs? |
|
Why should we value people who can do proofs when pencils and paper can also do proofs?
Why should we value musicians when a bitstream can also produce music?
Is this a troll or are u serious...?
|
|
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #15 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 3:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 3:44pm, JocK wrote:
Why should we value people who can do proofs when pencils and paper can also do proofs?
Why should we value musicians when a bitstream can also produce music?
Is this a troll or are u serious...?
|
|
Actually, pencils and paper can't do proofs. People use them to do proofs. But computers can do proofs all by themselves.
One may argue that people are better than computers at doing proofs. I think computers today are probably better than the vast majority of people at proving things. The vast majority of people probably can't write non-trivial mathematical proofs at all.
|
|
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #16 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 4:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I would agree and perhaps go as far to say that the vast majority of mathematicians cannot produce original non-trivial proofs. The crest of most mathematicians' careers is the ability to reproduce accurately complex proofs and, in some cases, possess sufficiently many mathematical experiences to prove a result that they have never seen before. But they will be doing nothing more than reinventing the wheel and making use of someone else's original approach. This, in theory, could be done by a computer; we could "teach" a computer sufficiently many results and allow it to make connections that lead to fruitful outcomes. However, the rare existence of a mathematician who makes that first discovery (which future generations will at best replicate) is beyond A.I.. Simply because it is by definition artificial (simulated), whereas the unique human quality we are talking about is G.I. = genuine intelligence.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #17 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 8:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm sorry, but no, no, no, and even no.
I'd thought by now you would of known mathematicians a little better. First of all, you have to produce something original just to become a mathematician in the first place. And you have to keep producing original stuff to stay one (which is why I no longer am a practicing mathematician). This does not mean that the stuff produced is exciting or deep or show "original" thought - just that it has to be something no-one has done before. And just like with the sciences, the vast majority of mathematics produced is uninspired corner-filling. But it is still about doing new stuff, not reproducing old.
Mathematicians are explorers. Mathematics is the undiscovered country they explore. They are trained in areas well-known, but then sent out to see what is beyond the edges. Mostly it turns out to be uninteresting and unhospitable terrain, but occasionally someone finds a pass into a whole new valley filled with wonderful and exciting new places. This is what drives mathematicians - the opportunity to explore new and beautiful ideas. Computers are tools. They have no concept of excitement or beauty. They have nothing to guide them to what is interesting and what is trivial. So even if you could program a computer to prove real theorems (and no-one has, whatever you think), it could never take the place of a mathematician. Not until you give it those so-called "right-brain" skills. If you want a "left-brained" occupation, mathematics is far down the scale.
But I am in full agreement with towr about the original subject. This is complete garbage. It is a false dichotomy of human thought. There is no such thing as a "right-brained" or "left-brained" person. What is perhaps most insulting about this article is the assumption that "foreigners" cannot do "right-brained" activities! Did anyone other than me notice this? The guy says we (the USA) are losing the technical fields to India and other nations who do them just fine, so that other fields they can't do - the so-called "right-brain" fields - are regaining dominance. He whole assumption is that those in India and elsewhere are somehow incapable of doing these jobs as well as we can. Clearly they must of hired an American to design the Taj Mahal! 
There are some many places where that essay diverges from reality, it is hard to address them all. The nature of the technical revolution and information age, the causes of outsourcing, and when it is a bad idea, the concept that certain jobs are "left-brained" while others are "right-brained" (I really loved that he included nurses as a "right-brained" job - despite the fact that nurses have to learn more technical information than us supposedly pure-left-brained mathematicians), the concept that people themselves can be divided this way.
People are complex creatures, with a variety of attributes that do not divide properly along these lines. We each come with our own mix of native talents and learned ones. While we tend to gravitate towards jobs that require more of out strong suits, we also tend to modify those jobs as possible (by choosing how we go about them) to more closely align with all our talents. So, given two programmers, you may find one nearly fitting the classic profile of an isolated geek, while the other performs her job with much interaction with others, belying the whole image. To call her "left-brained" is to seriously misjudge her nature. Less obvious, but the same thing is true of the isolated geek. Geeks and nerds in fact have pronounced "right-brain" tendencies that get ignored by those who wish to impose such distinctions. As one who has set on the edge of geek culture, I can tell you that they have a very well-developed social structure, though one that differs significantly from that of the rest of society.
I could go on for pages, but will let it stand with: that essay is nothing but hot electrons.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
amichail
Senior Riddler
Posts: 450
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #18 on: Jan 28th, 2005, 8:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 8:14pm, Icarus wrote:
Computers are tools. They have no concept of excitement or beauty. They have nothing to guide them to what is interesting and what is trivial. So even if you could program a computer to prove real theorems (and no-one has, whatever you think), it could never take the place of a mathematician. Not until you give it those so-called "right-brain" skills. If you want a "left-brained" occupation, mathematics is far down the scale.
|
|
In the future, if theorem provers become quite powerful, then mathematicians will indeed focus on guiding those theorem provers to interesting results. As you say, this is creative. So indeed, we will value creativity more.
|
|
IP Logged |
DropZap - a new kind of block elimination game
|
|
|
JocK
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 877
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #19 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 3:51pm, amichail wrote:
Actually, pencils and paper can't do proofs. People use them to do proofs. But computers can do proofs all by themselves.
|
|
Wow. And I really believed that computers are nothing more than a bunch of switches connected by wires. Silly me.
Can you give an example of a proof done by computers all by themselves?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:10am by JocK » |
IP Logged |
solving abstract problems is like sex: it may occasionally have some practical use, but that is not why we do it.
xy - y = x5 - y4 - y3 = 20; x>0, y>0.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #20 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 4:44am, amichail wrote:| Open-ended creativeness can be useful I think. |
|
But most often only in hindsight. Just like fundamental physics and fundamental mathematics usually does turn out to be very usefull, but only a long way down the line.
There's a tradeoff between shorte term and long term, and businesses and governments too often work on the short term.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #21 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 4:22pm, Sir Col wrote:| However, the rare existence of a mathematician who makes that first discovery (which future generations will at best replicate) is beyond A.I.. Simply because it is by definition artificial (simulated), whereas the unique human quality we are talking about is G.I. = genuine intelligence. |
|
I disagree, I believe A.I. can, and probably will, one day be G.I.
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. We're not magical better than other matter.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #22 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 2:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 8:14pm, Icarus wrote:| I'm sorry, but no, no, no, and even no. |
|
Do I detect that you disagree with something I said?
I believe that, in essence, the mathematical community behaves like a computer. They are trained in the "rules" and "patterns" that have been previously invented/discovered and have been shown to be fruitful. And rightly so!
However, there is not one single example in history where one of the great paradigm shifts in mathematics has occurred without the pioneer facing vehement opposition from the mathematical community at large.
What I was saying is that the pre-requisite for such a move takes great courage and a dogged determination to continue despite the overwhelming criticism, and willingness to "break the rules". I doubt that will ever be achieved by a computer. Who can know for certain?
Do not misunderstand me: I am no expert, as you well know, in A.I., but I suspect that we are a long way away from computers performing the functional/operational tasks of our excellent research mathematicians. Yet I imagine that it can and will be done one day.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Revenge of the Right Brain
« Reply #23 on: Jan 29th, 2005, 3:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 28th, 2005, 8:14pm, Icarus wrote:| So even if you could program a computer to prove real theorems (and no-one has, whatever you think), it could never take the place of a mathematician. Not until you give it those so-called "right-brain" skills. |
|
Oh don't worry, we're working on it 
Even so, it still wouldn't replace mathematicians, just create an additional breed.
on Jan 29th, 2005, 2:09am, JocK wrote:| Wow. And I really believed that computers are nothing more than a bunch of switches connected by wires. Silly me. |
|
And people are 'just' a bunch of atoms. The brain 'just' a bunch of neurons and connections (switches and wires).
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 29th, 2005, 3:03am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print