Is anyone on here willing to offer some constructive criticism on my essay? It's one of my first, so I'm not quite sure if what I'm doing is along the right lines or not! Any pointers on grammar/writing style/structure would also be appreciated :smile:

"Could a robot ever think like a human?" - TSA 2012

One could argue that the irrationality which riddles the human thought process is a characteristic unique to human thought. However, there have been attempts at modelling this human irrationality within computer programmes, in order to advance developments in behavioural game theory. The large extent to which the computers emulate this irrationality accurately could be used to argue that robots too can think irrationally, just like humans. There is a flaw in this argument. The modelling of this irrationality in computer programmes is entirely dependant on correction factors: numbers that indicate how often the computer should deviate from the rational 'rules' which have been laid out for it. These correction factors do not convincingly create irrationality; even though they may emulate results similar to those obtained from irrational human thought, the fact that these factors themselves set up rules for how the computer is meant to think entirely contradicts the concept of irrationality.

Furthermore, the human thought process is often influenced by emotions. Therefore, to question whether a robot could ever think like a human is to question whether a robot could ever experience emotion. Following substantial research within psychology into emotion, it has been concluded that emotion is a result of a combination of social constructs and biological changes. Since a robot could never experience either of these, one could conclude that a robot can never experience emotion and consequently never think like a human.

However, some may argue that it is in fact impossible to pinpoint a specific way in which all human beings think. Therefore, the more useful questions to ask when considering whether a robot could every think like a human are those which discuss whether a robot could ever emulate the power of the human brain. Computers have already been developed to emulate the brain power of several brain cells, and due to the large technological advances we are sure to make in the future, it could be extrapolated that one day we will be able to create a computer that is as powerful as a human brain. Therefore, one day robots will be able to think 'like a human' as they will possess control over similar levels of 'brain power' which they can use in any way they choose to create thought, just like a human being does presently.

Thus it could be possible for a robot to think like a human, depending on how we approach the definition of human thought. If our definition relies wholly on the brain power that generates thought, then it is possible that one day a robot will possess the same intellectual capacity as a human and so have access to just as many different possible methods of thought as a human. However, if we define human thought through factors that influence it, such as irrationality and emotion, then we quickly come to the conclusion that robots will never be able to think as humans do, as they cannot be influenced by the same defining factors.

This is not a topic which I'd feel particularly comfortable writing on but great essay, the structure/grammar seems fine to me. Here's a couple of thoughts:

- Love the first paragraph! I like how you introduced computer programs which model irrationality, but then evaluated that by saying that these rationalities are based on the entirely rational implementation of programmed rules - rational irrationality.

- I like the second paragraph and I'm certainly not an expert on the topic by any means but couldn't computers at some point in the future begin to alter their 'biology' and respond to their surroundings? Computers already to some extent modify their own programming to respond to certain situations, and I see no reason why in the future there couldn't be large progress in this area. http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-program-to-modify-its-own-code

- Third paragraph; brilliant again. Maybe you could've used the example of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov to show that in some respects computers can already outstrip human intelligence.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 404

username1160544

12

Original post by maximator

Can somebody please explain Q48 from 2009?
http://www.admissionstestingservice.org/images/99502-tsa_oxford_section_1_2009.pdf

I have shown this question to two of my friends who are also doing the TSA, and two teachers, one of whom went to Cambridge. None of them had any idea whatsoever.

Reply 405

sjulia730

Original post by Joe7

This is not a topic which I'd feel particularly comfortable writing on but great essay, the structure/grammar seems fine to me. Here's a couple of thoughts:

- Love the first paragraph! I like how you introduced computer programs which model irrationality, but then evaluated that by saying that these rationalities are based on the entirely rational implementation of programmed rules - rational irrationality.

- I like the second paragraph and I'm certainly not an expert on the topic by any means but couldn't computers at some point in the future begin to alter their 'biology' and respond to their surroundings? Computers already to some extent modify their own programming to respond to certain situations, and I see no reason why in the future there couldn't be large progress in this area. http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-program-to-modify-its-own-code

- Third paragraph; brilliant again. Maybe you could've used the example of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov to show that in some respects computers can already outstrip human intelligence.

I'm glad to hear the grammar/structure is fine, English isn't my first language and sometimes I'm worried it shows! I didn't know that computers can modify their own programming so that point certainly sparks up some very interesting ideas for further thought. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through my essay and comment on it, it's been very helpful! Good luck on Wednesday :smile:

Reply 406

PaulKrugman

7

2012 q44 anyone got an explanation?

Reply 407

uls1295

Original post by oluwabob

Are the harder questions nearer the end actually worth more marks? And for practice papers, do you use the score conversion to work out your score as a percentage?

All questions are worth 1 point regardless of difficulty. And the score conversion thing isn't percentage, it's a thing called a Rasch scale so they can compare scores year to year where tests have varied in overall difficulty :smile:

Reply 408

username1160544

12

Original post by PaulKrugman

2012 q44 anyone got an explanation?

There is no proper method really, you've got to visualise the shapes and look for similarities.

B and E are definitely the same as E is just B flipped downwards. D and C are not the same, because if you rotate C 180 degrees it doesn't look the same as D. Therefore, if you compare both with A it can be seen that if you flip D over and rotate a bit you get A. Hence, C is the odd one out.

Reply 409

Stillreading

14

Original post by maximator

Can somebody please explain Q48 from 2009?
http://www.admissionstestingservice.org/images/99502-tsa_oxford_section_1_2009.pdf

This one is really tricky but I'll try and explain it here:
You basically have to draw out what each route looks like, then follow the path and see if it's the shortest or not. The paths I got were:
C B X A
B C X A
B C A X
C X B A
X A B C

If you follow the route provided, you will see the shortest way around a, b, d, and e is the route shown (it might help if you draw arrows above the letters and follow the route). With C, however, the route goes right, then left, then further left then right again. This is not the shortest route, therefore the answer is C.

Hopefully this made sense, although I don't think I explained it very well! Let me know if you need further clarification :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 410

PaulKrugman

7

Original post by Joe7

There is no proper method really, you've got to visualise the shapes and look for similarities.

B and E are definitely the same as E is just B flipped downwards. D and C are not the same, because if you rotate C 180 degrees it doesn't look the same as D. Therefore, if you compare both with A it can be seen that if you flip D over and rotate a bit you get A. Hence, C is the odd one out.

Magnificent bastard.

What are you getting atm in the TSA?

Reply 411

username1160544

12

Original post by PaulKrugman

Magnificent bastard.

What are you getting atm in the TSA?

Thanks Paul. :wink:

High 60s to low 70s, yourself?

Reply 412

Askaud

8

I've finished all the MC papers with score conversion so now I'm doing an essay or two. Did it in 32 minutes(including planning) but I'm not too bothered about that, just keen to make sure I'm doing right. Found giving counter arguments, whilst having a definite stance difficult to do well in the time allowed. Think it will be alright enough.

Can someone read it and say what they think please.

Does immigration benefit a country?

Spoiler

Reply 413

Agap

1

Original post by Askaud

I've finished all the MC papers with score conversion so now I'm doing an essay or two. Did it in 32 minutes(including planning) but I'm not too bothered about that, just keen to make sure I'm doing right. Found giving counter arguments, whilst having a definite stance difficult to do well in the time allowed. Think it will be alright enough.

Can someone read it and say what they think please.

Does immigration benefit a country?

Spoiler

You wrote this in 32 minutes by hand?
It's really long and you probably won't be able to do an essay like this wednessday

Reply 414

rmisra

2

Could someone please explain to me question 44 and 48 on the 2010 paper?

Thanks in advance

Reply 415

Askaud

8

Original post by Agap

You wrote this in 32 minutes by hand?
It's really long and you probably won't be able to do an essay like this wednessday

Well no I typed it which yeah I guess I can do quicker than writing by hand. I'm going to do another one tomorrow by hand to see the difference cos as you say I wouldn't be able to do that much in half an hour

Reply 416

Agap

1

Original post by Askaud

Well no I typed it which yeah I guess I can do quicker than writing by hand. I'm going to do another one tomorrow by hand to see the difference cos as you say I wouldn't be able to do that much in half an hour

That's probably better for practise. There is usually a lot to say and your whole text should be focused on getting the arguments in without having lots of time to think about or explain them.

Reply 417

Harshil1

When a football team plays at their home ground, they are more likely to win. The usualexplanations include the home team being used to the pitch or that travelling unsettles theopposing team. The real reason why, in football, home teams always have an advantage is thatreferees are influenced by the noise from the big home crowd to make decisions in favour of thehome team. In an experiment, referees were asked to make judgements from video recordings ofmatches. One group was played using recordings without sound, the other with. The first groupwas much less likely than the second to give decisions in favour of the home team. The secondgroup's decisions were close to those given by the referee in the match.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?

1.

A Very weak football teams are rarely successful when playing away from home.

2.

B The most successful football clubs normally have disputed decisions made in their favour.

3.

C Clubs which have very few supporters perform better at home than away.

4.

D All football referees have to be trained in understanding the rules of the game.

5.

E In some sports, such as golf, players on their home ground have no advantage.

Needed some help in this question. What do you guys think is the answer?

Reply 418

ventus

Original post by Harshil1

When a football team plays at their home ground, they are more likely to win. The usualexplanations include the home team being used to the pitch or that travelling unsettles theopposing team. The real reason why, in football, home teams always have an advantage is thatreferees are influenced by the noise from the big home crowd to make decisions in favour of thehome team. In an experiment, referees were asked to make judgements from video recordings ofmatches. One group was played using recordings without sound, the other with. The first groupwas much less likely than the second to give decisions in favour of the home team. The secondgroup's decisions were close to those given by the referee in the match.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?

1.

A Very weak football teams are rarely successful when playing away from home.