Randomness vs. Reasoning

In this particular reading Hofstadter mentions the compelling yet almost universal notion of intelligent backtracking on page one hundred fifteen of Fluid Concepts. This intelligent backtracking is described by Hofstadter as a standard strategy detailing how to fix a past problem in a given series of steps. One must look at prior decisions made, undo them and take a different path or go to the next set of problems and backtrack further. This intelligent backtracking can be seen as an almost altered perception or perceptual regrouping of a current problem and can help the solver in discovering the solution through detection of errors. Hofstadter then explains the choice to determine a different path to the solution, which can either be randomly chosen or by deductive reasoning. Choosing randomness in finding a solution would lead to a trial and error method; one would hypothesize, and take a considerable amount of time. However, Hofstadter takes a different approach to the random method and describes that to reason and speculate at the predicted outcome would take more time than randomly selecting a choice and plowing full speed ahead to see if it works or not. Jumbo the word program that Hofstadter creates, exploits a random method of choice making rather than a reason based one. With this random choice method all possibilities and pathways are open to explore which is quite the opposite of normal computer programs with closed guidelines and parameters that are pre defined. Hofstadter details that a program with a simple control structure allows the system to complete certain tasks a complex control structure program would get bogged down in. As mentioned in class certain systems, like prolog, are better at solving particular problems than others, and are conversely more exhaustive at solving various problems than other types of systems.

The random choice versus deductive reasoning pertaining to the intelligent backtracking of the Jumbo program Hofstadter details was at first perplexing to me. I thought logically that deductive reasoning would be much quicker in this instance than simply selecting random paths; therefore one would not waste time on obviously wrong means. However, I did not take into consideration the full breadth of the process intelligent backtracking. To take a step back in a problem process and then guesstimate where possible other solutions will lead you indeed takes more time than selecting a random path and going with it. For a computer program the time and amount of code to actually check possible solutions before selecting one would be extremely lengthy and time consuming. When I thought deductive reasoning would be a faster process I was thinking more about how we humans use reasoning and quickly, I did not initially think in terms of computational length or how a computer program would go about doing the same thing. From my perspective it is as if Hofstadter took an unneeded element of hypothetical reasoning out of his Jumbo program to make it more intelligent, quicker, versatile, and more plastic. In conclusion I can see where Hofstadter’s notion of randomness over reason can actually lead to a quicker and less exhaustive solution in some cases.