From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Thu Jan 07 1999 - 13:54:44 MST
Hal Finney wrote:
> I'd suggest that the E^2 case is plausible. You can think of
> the problem
> faced by an organism as a search tree. The branches of the
> tree are the
> possible actions, and the nodes are the corresponding states.
> You want
> to search down the tree and find nodes which lead to
> favorable states..
<snip>
This all makes perfect sense, except for one nagging question - why do we
seem so much smarter than apes? We have larger brains, but not by enough to
make much difference if this argument holds up.
I would suggest that there are two ways to improve one's intelligence. The
easy way is to use faster hardware and/or improved heuristics to getter a
deeper search tree, which suffers the problems you suggest. I will point
out, however, that increasing your search depth by 1 or 2 increments is not
a small change - it seems to be a decisive advantage in chess, for instance.
The hard way is to reformulate the problem in simpler terms, thus replacing
a combinatorial explosion with a solvable problem. Evolution may have
managed something like this with humans - we have a higher-order
representation of the world that an ape, so we can solve much harder
problems with only a modest increase in processing power.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:44 MST