On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between theoretical models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at least 1980, and one thing I have noticed is that people devise theoretical structures that are based on the assumption that intelligence is not complex .... but then they use these structures in such a way that the resulting system is almost always complex.
This is easily explained by the obvious fact that the definition of "complex" varies considerably across relevant populations, exacerbated in the case of AGI -- where it is arguably a germane element -- because many (most?) researchers are using "complex" in a colloquial (read: meaningless) sense rather than one of its more rigorously defined senses, of which there are a few interesting ones.
Most arguments and disagreements over "complexity" are fundamentally about the strict definition of the term, or the complete absence thereof. The arguments tend to evaporate if everyone is forced to unambiguously define such terms, but where is the fun in that.
J. Andrew Rogers ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
