From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Jun 30 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> > Nobody is saying that A.I. can't be predictable. A chess program is
> > predictable, but it simulates chess playing. A calculator is predictable,
> > but it can solve new problems.
>
> But the chess program and calculator solve those problems according
> to deterministic rules that can be determined if you have access
> to the underlying code. The fact that you can "lay-out" the
> underlying deterministic rules seems to contradict what many
> would want to define as "intelligence". I would argue that
> "intelligence" is having a large repeirtoire of pre-existing
> patterns (that in some cases generate responses that manifest
> in the physical reality) combined with a robust pattern matching
> algorithm that is good at selecting the pattern likely to generate
> the results you want in specific situations.
Well, the new quantum statements introduced for perl may help alleviate
this problem with determinism.
>
> > GAC seems to be only to answer questions with pre-recorded answers.
>
> I would argue that much of what one encounters in human-to-human
> interactions is "predictable" and cannot solve new problems.
> When I ask you "How much is 2+2?" do you answer 4 based on
> the fact that you understand the number theoretic aspects
> of this question or because you were programmed to give this
> response? People give "pre-programmed" responses based on a
> "closest-fit" to previous responses that produced favorable results.
Well, they do take known data and seek to find new patterns or
relationships whithin them, which is an entirely deterministic process.
A non-deterministic process would be to create new patterns or
relationships based on no data.
>
> ### "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> ### "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
> ### "The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so
> ### many different things."
> ### "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --
> ### that's all."
>
> Its unextropic (read unproductive) to slant words in favor of
> your arguments. The precise definition of terms and what they
> really mean determines whether or not productive debates may
> be entertained.
>
> Cross that line if you dare...
No real discourse can occur when entities have different meanings or
understandings of terms (see my essay "Its about the trust, stupid!" at
the exi-freedom website on yahoogroups).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:22 MST