"M1 and M2 can simulate each other" doesn't mean "M1 and M2 are identical", nor that the two should be analyzed in the same way. Efficiency is one issue, the suitability of concepts is another.
Pei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:43 PM Subject: RE: [agi] AI and computation (was: The Next Wave) > Pei: > > > For that "level" issue, one way to see it is through the concept > > of "virtual > > machine". We all know that at a low level computer only has procedural > > language and binary data, but at a high level it has > > non-procedural language > > (such as functional or logical languages) and decimal data. Therefore, if > > virtual machine M1 is implemented by virtual machine M2, the two may still > > have quite different properties. What I'm trying to do is to implement a > > "non-computing" system on a computing one. > > Interestingly though, even if M1 and M2 are very different, bisimulation may > hold. > > For example, NARS can simulate any Turing machine -- it has universal > computation power -- but this will often be a very inefficient simulation > (you need to use HOI with maximal confidence and boolean strength) .. > > The problem is that bisimulation, without taking efficiency into account, is > a pretty weak idea. This is a key part of my critique of wolfram's > thinking... > > ben > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
