On 04/02/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (And it's a fairly safe bet, Joseph, that no one will now do the obvious > thing and say.." well, one idea I have had is...", but many will say, "the > reason why we can't do that is...")
And maybe they would have a reason for doing so. I would like to think of an external objective test, I like tests and definitions. My stumbling block for thinking of external tests is that I can't think of any external test that can't be fooled by a giant look up table (ned block thought of this argument first). That is something that when input X comes in at time t, output Y goes out. It can pretend to learn things by having poor performance early on and then "improve". Not all designs of systems use lots of external tests to prove their abilities. Take making a new computer architecture that you want to have the property of computational universality. You wouldn't try to give it a few programs see if it can run them and declare it universal you would program it to emulate a Turing Machine to prove its universality. Similarly for new chip designs of existing architecture, you want to prove them equivalent to the old ones. Generality of an intelligence is this sort of problem I think, due to the inability to capture it flawlessly with external tests. I would be interested to discuss internal requirements of systems, if anyone else is. I'd have thought that you with your desire for things to be spontaneous would be wary of any external test that can be gamed by non-spontaneous systems. Will Pearson ----- 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=93443404-a1be29
