Pei Wang wrote:
It's difficult for me to attack a specific point after readingIn my opinion, one of the most common mistakes made by people is to think AI in terms of computability and computational complexity, using concepts like Turing machine, algorithm, and so on. For a long argument, see http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/551-PT/Lecture/Computation.pdf. Comments are welcome.
through your paper because I find myself at odds with your views
in many places. My views seem to be a lot more orthodox I suppose.
Perhaps where our difference is best highlighted is in the
following quote that you use:
“something can be computational at one level,
but not at another level” [Hofstadter, 1985]
To this I would say: "Something can LOOK like computation
at one level, but not LOOK at computation at another level.
Nevertheless it still is computation and any limits due to
the fundamental properties of computation theory still apply."
Or to use an example from another field: A great painting
involves a lot more than just knowledge of the physical
properties of paint. Nevertheless, a good painter will know
the physical properties of his paints well because he knows
that the product of his work is ultimately constrained by these.
That's one half of the story anyway; the other part is that I
believe that intelligence is definable at a pretty fundamental
level (i.e. not much higher than the concept of universal Turing
computation) but I'll leave that part for now and focus on this
first issue.
Shane
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
