On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive at an >> elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware algorithm. > > What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the question is > still open? If mathematics can't arrive at a solution that out-performs the > wetware algorithm, then the wetware isn't suboptimal. > > Sloppy thinking and hidden assumptions as usual . . . . >
That mathematicians fail to find a solution, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I assume that the assertion implies a timeframe, [before wetware-algorithms-based AI launches Singularity]. Biological neurons with DNA and stuff, communicating through chemical synapses and created by blind evolution can't be optimal on so many levels, even if you replace them with a verbatim simulation of their communication behavior... -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
