Well we (Penrose & co) are all headed in roughly the same direction, but
we're taking different routes.
If you really want the discussion to continue, I think you have to put out
something of your own approach here to "spontaneous creativity" (your terms)
as requested.
Yes, I still see the mind as following "instructions" a la "briefing", but
only odd ones, not a whole rigid set of them., a la programs. And the
instructions are "open-ended" and non-deterministically open to
interpretation, just as my briefing/instruction to you - "Ben go and get me
something nice for supper" - is. Oh, and the instructions that drive us,
i.e. emotions, are always conflicting, e.g [Ben:] "I might like to.. but do
I really want to get that bastard anything for supper? Or have the time to,
when I am on the very verge of creating my stupendous AGI?"
Listen, I can go on and on - the big initial deal is the claim that the mind
isn't - & no successful AGI can be - driven by a program, or thoroughgoing
SERIES/SET of instructions - if it is to solve even minimal general
adaptive, let alone hard creative problems. No structured approach will work
for an ill-structured problem.
You must give some indication of how you think a program CAN be generally
adaptive/ creative - or, I would argue, squares (programs are so square,
man) can be circled :).
Mike,
The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can be
creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of enquiry, a
predetermined approach to a problem -
...
But I see no reason why computers couldn't be "briefed" rather than
programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working along
predetermined lines.
But the computer that is being "briefed" is still running some software
program,
hence is still "programmed" -- and its responses are still determined by
that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it
perceives
only thru a digital bit stream)
I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable of
all
the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) that
are
also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence.
I don't know how you define a "literally imaginative power".
So, it seems like you are saying
-- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess
general
intelligence
Is this your assertion?
It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others have
argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted could
be straight out of "The Emeperor's New Mind" by Penrose.
Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same
stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general intelligence
is
possible only for "quantum gravity computers", which is what he posits
the brain is.
I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what
he is saying...
I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is...
- Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM
-----
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=82482150-8495ed
