Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Wordsmith: "Re: When I enter a room."
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Sergio Navega: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 05:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) writes:
>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<410ea576$1_1@news.athenanews.com>...
>> "Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:ceir6u$rt4$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
>All thinking is statistical to some extent, in the sense that thought
>must deal effectively with random sources encountered in the nature
>(or in thought itself).
>However, the more fundamental problem of perception is:
>i) Abstraction
The need for abstraction in perception is not obvious.
>ii) Acquiring order in the nature
Nature is disorderly. There isn't a lot of order to acquire.
>With these the agent can
>i) Predict the future
>ii) Manipulate the future
>...
>In a sense yet, but the nomenclature and theory of "dynamical systems"
>is in my opinion insufficient to solve the 4 problems I have stated
>above. Discrete theories are good enough.
It ought to be obvious that if discrete theories are good enough,
then predicting the future is impossible. To the extent that
prediction is possible, it depends on some degree of continuity.
>> > With some simple programming, say code that evaluate [f(x)]^2 - x,
>> > a computer might be able judge the adequecy of a square root
>> > computation.
>> > A human, using that ice-cream tastes good, might get to discovering
>> > life forms on Mars.
>Really? What is the causal link? What is the motivation? Making better
>ice-cream? :)
The causal link is quite complex, and involves social structure. Note
that science is mainly a social enterprise.
>> > With computational standards, how do you get outside the narrow
>> > ranged determined by those standards?
>> I think I understand your question and it seems obvious that
>> we have to let the organism come up with its own standard. What
>> I propose is that the common idea behind all the standards of
>> all intelligent animals of the planet has something to do with
>> the discovery of the most relevant statistical properties of
>> stimuli.
>There are researchers that would argue against letting the organism
>come up with its own standard. This should be restricted by the
>cognitive architecture, or otherwise the organism might generate a
>utility function which will result in its immediate death (such as
>finding death a pleasureable experience).
They are no doubt the same researchers as insist that programming be
done in pascal or modula2, and who decry language such as C as too
dangerous to use.
I belong to the other school of thought which says that if you
prevent people from doing anything stupid, then at the same time you
prevent them from doing anything clever. Intelligence is all about
being clever, even if that sometimes involves risks.
>Juergen Schmidhuber argues that the organism adapts a new utility
>function *only* when it can *prove* that the new utility function does
>not "topple down" the old one.
That sounds wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFBEG8VvmGe70vHPUMRAr/vAJ4l5ODii1cJASTLYyJLUYhRnB9GrwCdEmdV
iTnpWNrhxr+djOZ3naTmtRs=
=M3kO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: Wordsmith: "Re: When I enter a room."
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Sergio Navega: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|