2008/9/4 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Terren, > > If you think it's all been said, please point me to the philosophy of AI > that includes it. > > A programmed machine is an organized structure. A keyboard (and indeed a > computer with keyboard) are something very different - there is no > organization to those 26 letters etc. They can be freely combined and > sequenced to create an infinity of texts. That is the very essence and > manifestly, the whole point, of a keyboard. > > Yes, the keyboard is only an instrument. But your body - and your brain - > which use it, are themselves keyboards. They consist of parts which also > have no fundamental behavioural organization - that can be freely combined > and sequenced to create an infinity of sequences of movements and thought - > dances, texts, speeches, daydreams, postures etc. > > In abstract logical principle, it could all be preprogrammed. But I doubt > that it's possible mathematically - a program for selecting from an infinity > of possibilities? And it would be engineering madness - like trying to > preprogram a particular way of playing music, when an infinite repertoire is > possible and the environment, (in this case musical culture), is changing > and evolving with bewildering and unpredictable speed. > > To look at computers as what they are (are you disputing this?) - machines > for creating programs first, and following them second, is a radically > different way of looking at computers. It also fits with radically different > approaches to DNA - moving away from the idea of DNA as coded program, to > something that can be, as it obviously can be, played like a keyboard - see > Dennis Noble, The Music of Life. It fits with the fact (otherwise > inexplicable) that all intelligences have both deliberate (creative) and > automatic (routine) levels - and are not just automatic, like purely > programmed computers. And it fits with the way computers are actually used > and programmed, rather than the essentially fictional notion of them as pure > turing machines. > > And how to produce creativity is the central problem of AGI - completely > unsolved. So maybe a new approach/paradigm is worth at least considering > rather than more of the same? I'm not aware of a single idea from any AGI-er > past or present that directly addresses that problem - are you? >
You can't create a program out of thin air. So you have to have some sort of program to start with. You probably want to change the initial program in some way as well as perhaps adding more programming. This leads you to recursive self-change and its subset RSI, which is a very tricky business even if you don't think it is going to go FOOM and take over the world. So this very list has been discussing in abstract terms the very thing you want it to be discussing! Will ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
