----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Legg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AI and computation (was: The Next Wave)
> Hi Pei, > > > One issue that make that version of the paper controversial is the term > > "computation", which actually has two senses: (1) "whatever computer > > does",and (2) "what defined as `computation' in computability theory". In > > the paper I'm using the second sense of the term. (I'm revising the paper > > to make this more clear.) > > Ok, so just to be perfectly clear about this. You maintain that a > "real computer" (say my laptop here that I'm using) is able to do > things that are beyond what is possible with a "theoretical computer" > (say a Turing machine). Is that correct? Yes. See below. > If so, then this would seem to be the key difference of opinion > between us. Right. Again let's use NARS as a concrete example. It can answer questions, but if you ask the same question twice to the system at different time, you may get different answers. In this sense, there is no algorithm that takes the question as input, and produces an unique answer as output. You may say that there is still an algorithm (or many algorithms) in the system, which take many other factors into account in producing answers, which I agree (simply because that is how NARS is coded), but still, there is no single algorithm that is soly responsible for the question-answering process, and that is the point. The cooperations of many algorithms, under the influence of many factors beside the current input, is not necessarily equivalent to an algorithm, or a Turing machine, as defined in the Theory of Computation. The main idea in Turing Computation is that the machine serves as a function that maps each input uniquely into an output. Intelligence, with its adaptivity and flexivity, should not been seen as such a fixed mapping. > > If you are still unconvinced, think about this problem: say the problem you > > are trying to solve is to reply my current email. Is this problem > > computable? Do you follow an algorithm in solving it? What is the > > computational complexity of this process? > > I have no reason that I can think of to believe that a response to > your email could not be generated by an algorithm. Perhaps a big > fancy one with a high computation complexity, but I don't see any > reason why not. I'm not asking about whether it "could" --- of course I can image an algorithm that does nothing but take my email as input, and produce the above reply of yours as output. I just don't believe it is how your mind works. For one thing, to use an algorithm to solve a problem means, by definition, if I repeat the question, you'll repeat the answer. Since I know you in person, I'm sure you are more adaptive than that. ;-) Cheers, Pei > Cheers > Shane > > > ------- > 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]
