Did Mike imply you could have "non-algorithmic programming"? Jeez. I thought he had some legitimate criticism, but seriously, has he heard of these things called computers? Andi
Can I help? On May 12, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike T, > >> Junk Opencog, and you’ll find that AGI is *relatively* easy (!). – because, >> unbeknownst to Jim and perhaps to you, robots *don’t* have to be >> *algorithmically* programmed – they can be programmed to be creative and do >> new things, not just the same old things – move along new lines, not just >> the same old lines.. > > "Non-algorithmic programming" is an oxymoron ... unfortunately you > (literally) don't really know what you're talking about ... > > If > > A) > GI can't be achieved via supplying a robot with *algorithms* and letting it > loose in the world and teaching it, THEN, > > this implies > > B) > no classical, Turing or quantum computer can achieve GI with any *program* > ... and also that no system describable via quantum mechanics can achieve > AGI.... > > This is the case according to all scientifically and mathematically accepted > definitions of "algorithm" and "program" ... > > Some smart folks such as Roger Penrose and Robert Rosen have maintained > position B, though I don't agree with them... > > But your position as stated is not coherent... I suspect because you don't > really know the meanings of the words you're using... > > -- Ben G > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
