Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pei,
I don't think there's any confusion here. Your system as you describe it IS deterministic. Whether an observer might be confused by it is irrelevant. Equally the fact that it is determined by a complex set of algorithms applying to various tasks and domains and not by one task-specific algorithm, is also irrelevant. It's still deterministic. The point, presumably, is that your system has a clear set of priorities in deciding between different goals, tasks, axioms and algorithms Humans don't. Humans are still trying to work out what they really want, and what their priorities are between, for example, the different activities of their life, between work, sex, friendship, love, family etc. etc. Humans are designed to be in conflict about their fundamental goals throughout their lives. And that, I would contend, is GOOD design, and essential for their success and survival. Slightly contridictory here though, for Pei's systems you say: Whether an observer might be confused by it is irrelevant. But this can apply equally to humans, just becaused you are confused by the behavior, doesnt mean it has no basis in reason. Pei's system may not have a "clear" set of goals, they may be dirty and contridictory, and have to work out what is best at any point in time, which may change, just as a humans would. If there's any confusion, think about many women and dieting. They will be confronted by much the same decisions about whether to eat or not to eat on possibly thousands of occasions throughout their lives. And over and over, throughout their entire lives, they will - freely - decide now this way, now that. Yo-yoing on and off their diets. Your system, as I understand it, would never do that - would never act in such crazy, mixed up, contradictory ways. Humans do, because they are, truly, free - and, I contend, non-deterministically programmed - and, repeat, this is, paradoxically, good design.. Sure, this still follows reason. Follow the woman around, at first she is upset about her weight because she cant get into a dress size, then later she is tempted at a restaurant with a choco delight. There is a reason for all of that, even if it is a complicated way of getting at it, and may be contridictory, and may not be the "best" way to go towards a goal. You have to give a better definition of "non-determinism" and everything before you just say people are that, and are "free" Being free doesnt mean they dont act for a reason, even if the reasons are faulty. Much control of humans may be determined by the environment, and inner emailtional state, as well as physical needs. What behaviour or effect of a human is totally non-deterministic? Even when looking at a fork in the road and choosing one path, a human could take subtle clues such as lighting, or direction or wideness of the path without being directly aware of it.... but there is still the reason there. I think that non-deterministic behaviour as I have seen defined several ways can not be predicted in any way, so would in a sense have to be totally random... people are not good with random things. A computer on the other hand, is good with psuedo-random numbers, and can EASILY be said to be non-deterministic at that level. Easy case: Give this book to someone in the room. AI: pick random person and gives it to them. Can you predict that he was goign to give it to you? Nope. James Ratcliff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pei Wang" To: Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [agi] The Advantages of a Conscious Mind > Mike, > > I believe many of the confusions on this topic is caused by the > following "self-evident" belief: "A system is fundamentally either > deterministic or non-deterministic. The human mind, with free will, is > fundamentally non-deterministic; a conventional computer, being Turing > Machine, is fundamentally deterministic". Based on such a belief, many > people think AGI can only be realized by something that is > "non-deterministic by nature", whatever that means. > > This belief, though works fine in some other context, is an > oversimplification in the AI/CogSci context. Here, as I said before, > whether a system is deterministic may not be taken as an intrinsic > nature of the system, but as depending on the description about it. > > For example, NARS is indeed "nondeterministic" in the usual sense, > that is, after the system has obtained a complicated experience, it > will be practically impossible for either an observer or the system > itself to accurately predict how the system will handle a > user-provided task. On the other level of description, NARS is still a > deterministic Turing Machine, in the sense that its state change is > fully determined by its initial state and its experience, step by > step. > > Now the important point is: when we say that the mind is > "nondeterministic", in what sense are we using the term? I believe it > is like "it will be practically impossible for either an observer or > the mind itself to accurately predict how the system will handle a > problem", rather than ""it will be theoretically impossible for an > observer to accurately predict how the system will handle a problem, > even if the observer has full information about the system's initial > state, processing mechanism, and detailed experience, as well as has > unlimited information processing power". Therefore, for all practical > considerations, including the ones you mentioned, NARS is > nondeterministic, since it doesn't process input tasks according to a > task-specific algorithm. > > [If the above description still sounds confusing or contradictionary, > you'll have to read my relevant publications. I don't have the > intelligence to explain everything by email.] > > Pei > > > On 5/6/07, Mike Tintner wrote: >> Pei, >> >> Thanks for stating your position (which I simply didn't know about >> before - >> NARS just looked at a glance as if it MIGHT be nondeterministic). >> >> Basically, and very briefly, my position is that any AGI that is to deal >> with problematic decisions, where there is no right answer, will have to >> be >> freely, nondeterministically programmed to proceed on a trial and error >> basis - and that is just how human beings are programmed. >> (Nondeterministically programmed should not be simply equated with >> current >> kinds of programming - there are an infinity of possible ways of >> programming >> deterministically, ditto for nondeterministically). > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: > 269.6.4/790 - Release Date: 05/05/2007 10:34 > > ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
