Ben,
You asked recently for comments on analog computation (I forgot what thread that was, so I started a new one). My comment is on the need for a comparison between Turing computation and analog computation. Of course, AC can do all that TC can do, but can it do more? I believe it can. TC is particularly weak in everything related to binding, associations, and the resulting structures (BAS). Anywhere that BAS are needed, humans are called for help. Have you noticed? It never fails. I have compiled a list of problems that are "easy for humans but very difficult for computers to solve", the GUAPS, great unsolved automation problems of software engineering. They all critically depend on BAS. They include OO analysis and design, object recognition, self-programming, and many others. Turing himself was concerned about this limitation, and he wrote extensively about it in the context of morphogenesis but never solved the problem. The GUAPs, of course, include the invariant structures that our brains make (I know a chair is a chair even if it is upside down => invariance under transformations). It seems to me that AC can do more than TC. Because physical systems do self-organize and make structures. Physics even has theorems about this. If so, AGI would be squarely outside the domain of TC, and strictly within that part of the domain of AC that is not TC. Sergio AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; ad2> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
