I don't really understand what you mean by "programmed" ... nor by "creative"
You say that, according to your definitions, a GA is programmed and ergo cannot be creative... How about, for instance, a computer simulation of a human brain? That would be operated via program code, hence it would be "programmed" -- so would you consider it intrinsically noncreative? Could you please define your terms more clearly? thx ben On Jan 6, 2008 1:21 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MT: This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must > be > > programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is > >> essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of > >> all > >> animal and human activities). > > > Ben: Spontaneous, creative self-organized activity is a key aspect of > Novamente > > and many other AGI designs. > > Ben, > > You are saying that your pet presumably works at times in a non-programmed > way - spontaneously and creatively? Can you explain briefly the > computational principle(s) behind this, and give an example of where it's > applied, (exploration of an environment, say)? This strikes me as an > extremely significant, even revolutionary claim to make, and it would be a > pity if, as with your analogy claim, you simply throw it out again without > any explanation. > > And I'm wondering whether you are perhaps confused about this, (or I have > confused you) - in the way you definitely are below. Genetic algorithms, > for example, and suchlike classify as programmed and neither truly > spontaneous nor creative. > > Note that Baum asked me a while back what test I could provide that humans > engage in "free thinking." He, quite rightly, thought it a scientifically > significant claim to make, that demanded scientific substantiation. > > My test is not a test, I stress though, of free will. But have you changed > your mind about this? It's hard though not a complete contradiction to > believe in a mind being spontaneously creative and yet not having freedom of > decision. > > MT: I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is to record > >> humans' actual streams of thought about any problem > > > Ben: > While introspection is certainly a valid and important tool for > inspiring > > work in AI and cog sci, it is not a test of anything. > > > Ben, > > This is a really major - and very widespread - confusion. A recording of > streams of thought is what it says - a direct or recreated recording of a > person's actual thoughts. So, if I remember right, some form of that NASA > recording of subvocalisation when someone is immediately thinking about a > problem, would classify as a record of their thoughts. > > Introspection is very different - it is a report of thoughts, remembered at > a later, often much later time. > > A record(ing) might be me saying "I want to kill you, you bastard " in an > internal daydream. Introspection might be me reporting later: "I got very > angry with him in my mind/ daydream." Huge difference. An awful lot of > scientists think, quite mistakenly, that the latter is the best science can > possibly hope to do. > > Verbal protocols - getting people to think aloud about problems - are a sort > of halfway house (or better). > > > > > > ----- > 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=8660244&id_secret=82398434-a3e5d5
