The world can always be described by an arbitrarily large logical
predicate. The world as it exists now is one world-state. If one clause in
the predicate were changed, that would be another world state.
More complex world states need more clauses in the predicate to describe
them (i.e. their space is larger). A world with one binary object is a
two-state space. A world with two binary switches is a four-state space. A
world with three ten-position switches is a 1000-state space.
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence
I guess I don't really understand your formalism, i.e.
-- how you define a "world-state" ... do you mean a set of elementary
world-states described by some logical predicate?
-- how do you define the size of a world-state ... would it be the complexity
of that predicate?
thx
ben
On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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/?&;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
