I agree, with Katherine
It has to do with something happening inside the brain. What if the computer
asked a question that the human did not know the answer to, but the human mind
found the question so enticing that it had no choice but to think about it.
The coma like state could be explained by the mind shutting down all other
resources to concentrate on finding the solution to the question. This is a
very wild guess.
Quoting Katherine Loo <in_limbo@yorku.ca>:
> Hi,
>
> I found Jason D.'s hypothesis to be very interesting, but I am not sure of
> its
> validity as an answer to the cause of the Riddle.
>
> I doubt anyone, no matter how embarassed, would be willing to be put in a
> coma
> (and then die) just because they lost to a computer. More notably are the
> undergrad students who succumbed to the coma during a lecture of an automata
>
> theory course. There is no 'shame' for a student to not understand, so why
> would they willfully be put in a coma? Also, in some of the Riddle coma
> cases, no computers were involved at all, so there was no machine to put
> anyone in a trance-like situation.
>
> I think the answer lies in the fact that the Riddle must be understood for it
>
> to take effect. So whatever IS happening, happens inside the mind.
>
> =Katherine Loo=
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Jason Dong <kinezo@yorku.ca>:
>
> > Hi class,
> >
> > So we're supposed to come up with a hypothetical explanation of what
> happened
> > with this "riddle" that's been killing everyone. I wasn't sure what other
> > discussion for this part of the course was supposed to happen..
> >
> > Here's an idea (sorry for the length)
> >
> > So Dizzard is sitting in front of his computer embroiled in an exchange of
> > mental mudslinging whereby he and the computer challenge each other to
> prove
> > statements to be true in order to determine whether or not the computer's
> and
> > Dizzard's thought patterns are the same. The only rule was that the
> > statements had to be provable and true.
> >
> > You might say it would be a somewhat similar parallel to Kasparov and Deep
> > Blue. Dizzard, being a falliable human being, comes up with a brilliant
> idea
> > of introducing a self referential paradox -- a Godelian type statement
> that
> > might outfox the computer.
> >
> > So he types it in but little does he know the computer has been programmed
> > not only to recognize a Godelian statement (refering to Lucas' argument
> about
> > standardizing the creation of a Godelian formula) being processed, but
> also
> > provide a response saying the point of the game was not to see who's
> "mind"
> > was more superior, but whether or not their thinking was the same. Since
> the
> > Godel statement was not provable, Dizzard lost and could not take the
> > embarassment of losing to a machine so he instructed the computer to
> induce
> > him into a trance-like state so nobody could learn of his "shame".
> >
> > All those who came in contact with the computer were obviously so inticed
> > with why Dizzard died each engaged in this game and each made the same
> > mistake as Dizzard trying to assert their superiority over this machine.
> So,
> > each followed the route of Dizzard by succumbing to the trance-like coma.
> >
> > It surely sounds like a voodoo-ish story to tell over the campfire (yeah
> > right!)
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> This message was sent to the math3500 discussion list by Katherine Loo
> <in_limbo@yorku.ca> .
>
___________________________________________________________________
This message was sent to the math3500 discussion list by Anu Surendra <rose12@yorku.ca> .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Dec 08 2004 - 14:25:30 EST