On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) The claims are meant to be applied at a chosen level of description -
As were mine. I don't claim e.g. computers are complex because their
constituent silicon atoms are complex (though they are), but because
they are complex at all levels of description including the ones
ordinarily used by hardware engineers, programmers and sophisticated
users. There is no significant level on which computers are not
complex.
> 2) There is a widely accepted, broader sense of 'nonlinear' than merely
> "not described by an equation in which x is proportional to y". That
> broader sense is roughly equivalent to "cannot separate the variables".
Well, the important concept in this discussion is "complex" in the
sense of "no analytical short-cut to predicting behavior of the whole
from description of the parts".
> You then go flying off on a sequence of non-sequiteurs ("so if complexity
> made systems undevelopable ...") which imply that I made arguments that I
> did not.
You have repeatedly claimed that the complexity argument means AGI
(other than of the brain emulation variety) is undevelopable - have
you decided to retract that claim?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
