On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> Jim, > You’re doing it again – arguing logically as opposed to scientifically – > and seem deeply confused about the difference. Hence: > “if I could write a program that did not react to Input but which created > an endless variety of patterns then would you (Mike) accept that it > verified the idea that rational computational methods had the *POTENTIAL* > to be intelligent” > That’s not evidence, Jim, as you proceed to argue. That’s a hypothesis > about a fictional program of your invention. “Evidence “ can only be > derived from ****ACTUAL*** programs. I told you: you’re lost in logical > definitions. The difference between your fictional hypotheses about what > programs **may** be able to do, and what programs **actually** do, escapes > you – and not just this time, but always, as far as I know you. > > Mike, I was asking you a question - which you did not answer. Jim Bromer On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Jim, > You’re doing it again – arguing logically as opposed to scientifically – > and seem deeply confused about the difference. Hence: > “if I could write a program that did not react to Input but which created > an endless variety of patterns then would you (Mike) accept that it > verified the idea that rational computational methods had the *POTENTIAL* > to be intelligent” > That’s not evidence, Jim, as you proceed to argue. That’s a hypothesis > about a fictional program of your invention. “Evidence “ can only be > derived from ****ACTUAL*** programs. I told you: you’re lost in logical > definitions. The difference between your fictional hypotheses about what > programs **may** be able to do, and what programs **actually** do, escapes > you – and not just this time, but always, as far as I know you. > And so you get lost in your imaginings – here, for example, you posit a > program that can produce “an endless variety of patterns” – and proceed to > take that as a given, a virtual fact of life. > There is no such program (or algorithm), and there is no reason whatsoever > to think that an algo can create such an endless variety. > An algo can be designed to produce "a “very large variety” of patterns > (numerically large), just as a chess program can produce a very large > number of chess games – but only a very limited (not “endless”) range of > patterns, with a very limited range of elements. > You would have an AGI if your program (and it would have to be > non-algorithmic) could endlessly create new **kinds** of patterns with new > elements – and formally that would be equivalent to endlessly creating new > patchworks – because, just a tad paradoxically, a new pattern – a new kind > of Escher, say – Is in a sense a new patchwork when considered alongside > previous kinds of patterns. It breaks the principles of previous patterns – > breaks the pattern in a sense. When s.o. introduced random numerical > variations into patterns, as in cellular automata, they were introducing a > new kind of pattern with a new element. > The potentially infinite class of patterns, BTW, – taken as a whole – > constitutes a patchwork and not a patterned affair. There is no common > pattern to the class of patterns. People can and do keep inventing new > kinds and principles of pattern. > So we add a new injunction to you: “stick to EVIDENCE of actual programs > doing actual things” - and not your fictional programs doing fictional > things. > ------------------------------------------- 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
