Up to p126

The more that Hofstadter explains how the Jumbo program works the more I think that it is impossible to make. I think that with a dictionary database it is impossible to correctly model how humans solve these types of problems. There needs to be some type of middle ground between no dictionary at all and brute forcing it through string comparison. Even as humans solve jumble problems we are analyzing the jumbled word and extracting information from it so we can eliminate words in our mental dictionary. One obvious example, if you are trying to solve a jumble problem of 8 letters, you are not going to be thinking about a short word because that is impossible. I think in order to make the Jumbo program successful, there needs to be a process that analyzes the jumbled word and uses information from it to create a dictionary subset of the possible words. Creating a program that solves jumble problems without a dictionary just seems like a daunting and impossible task.

p97-111

Reading about the Jumbo program was interesting to me. I was very surprised to read about how Jumbo has no dictionary to match the words up to. When I first read about the purpose of Jumbo I thought to myself that it will need a dictionary of all English words in order to function properly. However, once reading about how they are going to construct Jumbo by making it like a human mental process, I don't think it is possible to correctly create it so it behaves this way. The reason I think this is because at this moment we don't even know all the details about how our actual minds store and fetch words (and parts of words for that matter). So, if we don't even know how our minds store and fetch words, how can we possibly create a program that is supposed to mimic that mental process?

p87-95

I found it interesting to read about how Hofstadter can take the letters of a word jumbled up and quickly produce the correctly-spelled word. I have always had a great deal of trouble trying to solve these problems, and it takes me a very long time to do so. It seems elegant in the way he describes solving these problems by, "toss(ing) the letters back up in the air and see how they come down the next time" (Hofstadter, 88). I struggle trying to solve it this way and end up trying to "brute-force" it by slowly starting at each letter and trying to add the remaining letters to try and make sense of a word. It makes me wonder why some people are good at solving these types of problems and why some people aren't.

p70-86

I found it interesting to read about the Tylenol murders and what they did after in order to prevent an attack like that from happening again. It is fascinating to see that people become so paranoid over one particular product that was poisoned as they ignored every other product that could be contaminated with a different poison. I think that the reason this happens derives from the irrational emotions that all humans share and how we all have the need to correct the things that cause us anxiety. When things like the Tylenol murders happen, or any bad thing that causes disorder in one's life, humans strive to fix what has bothered them rather than fix what could potentially bother them. We are much better at fixing something that has obviously gone wrong rather than anticipating what could go wrong in the future. This happens because when something has gone wrong, our negative emotions kick in and our drive to rid ourselves of these emotions greatly increases. However, when thinking about something that could potentially (rarely) go wrong, no/less emotions are involved, so our drive to react upon it is nowhere near as strong than if something actually did go wrong.

p55-70

This week we had to read pages 55-70 and reflect upon it. Hofstadter states that, "If mathematics is anything, it is the art of choosing the most elegant generalization for some abstract pattern" (Hofstadter, 70). I am quite confused as to why he considers math the art of choosing elegant generalizations to patterns. From my perspective, math is discrete, there are no elegant generalizations but only one universal correct solution to a specific problem. Nobody elegantly generalizes the answer to 2+2 to be 4, it is just 4 because two of one thing combined with two of another is 4 of that thing. What if the opinion of the world changes to think that the most elegant generalization of 2+2 is 5, the answer would not change to 5. This is why math being the most elegant generalization for some abstract pattern does not make sense to me, 2+2 will always be 4, no matter where you are, in the past it was always 4, and in the future it will always remain 4.

Up to p55 Reflection

I found it interesting when Hofstadler talks about the differences between being number savvy and being sensitive to patterns. I never realized that being number savvy and being able to recognize patterns in numbers were two distinct processes. After reading this section, I believe that if a person is good at both being number savvy and recognizing patterns in numbers, he/she cannot do both well at the same time. There needs to be a mental "shift" into a different gear to effectively complete each task. Also, in reference to last semester's course COG266, I believe that being number savvy is a left-brain activity while being able to recognize patterns in numbers is a right-brain activity. Being number savvy involves completeing problems in parts (which is left-brain) rather than the whole, and recognizing patterns in a series of numbers requires you to look at the series in a whole (which is right-brain).

Chapter One Reflection

In reading the first few paragraphs in the book, the author states that, "one thing I had become convinced of was that pattern-finding was close to the core, if not the core, of intelligence." This is one thing that I truly agree with also. Another thing that I believe that determines intelligence is to be able to actively observe patterns in real-time and being able to recognize them. Just simple patterns such as being able to spot the tells that someone gives off when they are lying. I know there are some people who can do great on an IQ test (basically all pattern recognition questions), but are completely dismal at actively searching for and recognizing patterns in everyday life. I truly believe that being able to observe and recognize patterns in real time in everyday life is essential in determining the level of one's intelligence.