Hi Pei,
I liked your definition so I went to dictionary.com and found two
different definitions of deterministic which seem to clearly show our
dilemma
=======================
Free On-line Dictionary of Computing - Cite This Source
deterministic
1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly.
Contrast probabilistic.
For all practical purposes, NARS and the human mind are non-deterministic by
this definition.
=======================
WordNet - Cite This Source deterministic
adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes
And I would argue that both the human mind and NARS are deterministic by
this definition. :-)
=======================
Makes it kind of tough to argue, doesn't it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The Advantages of a Conscious Mind
Mike,
I believe many of the confusions on this topic is caused by the
following "self-evident" belief: "A system is fundamentally either
deterministic or non-deterministic. The human mind, with free will, is
fundamentally non-deterministic; a conventional computer, being Turing
Machine, is fundamentally deterministic". Based on such a belief, many
people think AGI can only be realized by something that is
"non-deterministic by nature", whatever that means.
This belief, though works fine in some other context, is an
oversimplification in the AI/CogSci context. Here, as I said before,
whether a system is deterministic may not be taken as an intrinsic
nature of the system, but as depending on the description about it.
For example, NARS is indeed "nondeterministic" in the usual sense,
that is, after the system has obtained a complicated experience, it
will be practically impossible for either an observer or the system
itself to accurately predict how the system will handle a
user-provided task. On the other level of description, NARS is still a
deterministic Turing Machine, in the sense that its state change is
fully determined by its initial state and its experience, step by
step.
Now the important point is: when we say that the mind is
"nondeterministic", in what sense are we using the term? I believe it
is like "it will be practically impossible for either an observer or
the mind itself to accurately predict how the system will handle a
problem", rather than ""it will be theoretically impossible for an
observer to accurately predict how the system will handle a problem,
even if the observer has full information about the system's initial
state, processing mechanism, and detailed experience, as well as has
unlimited information processing power". Therefore, for all practical
considerations, including the ones you mentioned, NARS is
nondeterministic, since it doesn't process input tasks according to a
task-specific algorithm.
[If the above description still sounds confusing or contradictionary,
you'll have to read my relevant publications. I don't have the
intelligence to explain everything by email.]
Pei
On 5/6/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei,
Thanks for stating your position (which I simply didn't know about
before -
NARS just looked at a glance as if it MIGHT be nondeterministic).
Basically, and very briefly, my position is that any AGI that is to deal
with problematic decisions, where there is no right answer, will have to
be
freely, nondeterministically programmed to proceed on a trial and error
basis - and that is just how human beings are programmed.
(Nondeterministically programmed should not be simply equated with
current
kinds of programming - there are an infinity of possible ways of
programming
deterministically, ditto for nondeterministically).
-----
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
