Mike,

The reason I decided that what you are arguing for is essentially an
interactive model is this quote:

"But that is obviously only the half of it.Computers are obviously
much more than that - and  Turing machines. You just have to look at
them. It's staring you in the face. There's something they have that
Turing machines don't. See it? Terren?

They have -   a keyboard."

A keyboard is precisely what the interaction theorists are trying to
account for! Plus the mouse, the ethernet port, et cetera.

Moreover, your general comments fit into the model if interpreted
judiciously. You make a distinction between rule-based and creative
behavior; rule-based behavior could be thought of as isolated
processing of input (receive input, process without interference,
output result) while creative behavior is behavior resulting from
continual interaction with and exploration of the external world. Your
concept of organisms as "organizers" only makes sense when I see it in
this light: a human organizes the environment by interaction with it,
while a Turing machine is unable to do this because it cannot
explore/experiment/discover.

-Abram

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Abram,
>
> Thanks for reply. But I don't understand what you see as the connection. An
> interaction machine from my brief googling is one which has physical organs.
>
> Any factory machine can be thought of as having organs. What I am trying to
> forge is a new paradigm of a creative, free  machine as opposed to that
> exemplified by most actual machines, which are rational, deterministic
> machines. The latter can only engage in any task in set ways - and therefore
> engage and combine their organs in set combinations and sequences. Creative
> machines have a more or less infinite range of possible ways of going about
> things, and can combine their organs in a virtually infinite range of
> combinations, (which gives them a slight advantage, adaptively :) ).
> Organisms *are* creative machines; computers and robots *could* be (and are,
> when combined with humans), AGI's will *have* to be.
>
> (To talk of creative machines, more specifically, as I did, as
> keyboards/"organisers" is to focus on the mechanics of this infinite
> combinativity of organs).
>
> Interaction machines do not seem in any way then to entail what I'm talking
> about - "creative machines" - keyboards/ organisers - infinite combinativity
> - or the *creation,* as quite distinct from *following*  of
> programs/algorithms and routines..
>
>
>
> Abram/MT:>> If you think it's all been said, please point me to the
> philosophy of AI
>>>
>>> that includes it.
>>
>> I believe what you are suggesting is best understood as an interaction
>> machine.
>>
>>
>>
>> General references:
>>
>> http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/dqg/Papers/wurzburg.ps
>>
>> http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/ficacm.ps
>>
>> http://www.la-acm.org/Archives/laacm9912.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The concept that seems most relevant to AI is the learning theory
>> provided by "inductive turing machines", but I cannot find a good
>> single reference for that. (I am not knowledgable on this subject, I
>> just have heard the idea before.)
>>
>> --Abram
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> 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/?&;
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>


-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to