On 14/01/2008, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/1/14 William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I would define the similarity of the > > functions that it is possible to be interested in as. > > > > St = F(S(t-1),P) > > > > That is the current state is important to what change is made to the > > state. For example a man coming across the percept "Oui, bien sieur," > > would change his state in a different way depending upon whether he > > was already fluent in french or not. > > > > This doesn't really change the rest of your argument, but I feel it is > > important. > > That is correct for all deterministic systems, like Turing Machine. > However, I really don't like to describe the internal situations of a > system (or the external situation of its environment) using "state". > Though it is the common practice, this notion implies that the > description is complete and precise, which is often impossible. In > this paper, you can see that I only mentioned "state" in the first > category (Structure-AI), and leave it out for the other categories, > even though for those we still can discuss their states, as you > suggested.
Well, to a certain extent I have the same opinion on "actions" as you do "states". I consider any affect the computer system has on the world as an action, so radiation, heating up and using up energy whilst computing are all actions in my view. I don't pretend to have a complete and precise description of all the possible actions either. Percepts are similar, encompassing bit flips and other errors to the system (actions of the environment upon the system). I have long since given up trying to fully define all three. but I recognise their general usefulness in discussing systems. For details: http://codesoup.sourceforge.net/easa.pdf > > No, that is not the kind of situation I'm talking about. At the > current stage, I'm not really trying to propose a quantitative > measurement for intelligence or the similarity between systems. > Instead, I'm looking for qualitative difference among working > definitions of intelligence. I just have to assume that it is > meaningful to talk about the similarity between systems in several > aspects, and that will be enough for the conclusion of the paper. Which is why I warned you I was being pedantic. My approach to AI I expect is very principled, just possibly not in the narrow definition of principled you gave. Will ----- 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=85954122-be2542
