>> I don't like this so much, because two sets of world-states with equal >> measure (size) may have very different complexity...
I don't believe so because "complex" world states are by definition larger since they have more variables to vary (and thus more points/states/variables). It is true that one "complex" world-state is equivalent to multiple "simple" world states, but this is just the behavior that I desire/expect for my definition. If you're sure that I'm wrong, please provide an example . . . . ----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Goertzel To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which >>> things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally >>> include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition >>> (by false negatives or false positives)? Wow. The silence was deafening after my last attempt . . . . How about if I rephrase slightly dufferently as: Intelligence is the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity can successfully reach minus the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity cannot successfully avoid. I don't like this so much, because two sets of world-states with equal measure (size) may have very different complexity... ben g ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
