Mike, The philosophical paradigm I'm assuming is that the only two alternatives are deterministic and random. Either the next state is completely determined by the last, or it is only probabilistically determined.
Deterministic does not mean computable, since physical processes can be totally well-defined without being computable (take Newton's physics for example). So, 1) Is the next action that your creativity machine will take intended to be uniquely defined, given its experience and inputs? 2) is the next action intended to be computable from the experience and inputs? Meaning (approximately), could the creativity machine be implemented on a computer? --Abram On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Abram:> In that case I do not see how your view differs from simplistic >> >> dualism, as Terren cautioned. If your goal is to make a creativity >> machine, in what sense would the machine be non-algorithmic? Physical >> random processes? >> > > Abram, > > You're operating within a philosophical paradigm that says all actions and > problemsolving must be preprogrammed. Nothing else is possible. That ignores > the majority of real life problems where no program is possible, period. > > "Sometimes the best plan is no plan" If you're confronted with the task of > finding something in a foreign territory, you simply don't (and couldn't) > have the luxury of a program. > > All you have is a rough idea, as opposed to an algorithm, of the sort of > things you can do. You know roughly what you're looking for - an object > somewhere in that territory. You know roughly how to "travel" and put one > foor in front of the other and avoid obstacles and pick things up etc. > > (Let's say - you have to find a key that has been lost somewhere in a > house). > > Well you certainly don't have an algorithm for finding a lost key in a > house. In fact, if you or anyone would care to spend 5 mins on this problem, > you would start to realise that no algorithm is possible. Check out > Kauffman's interview on edge.com. for similar problems & arguments > . > So what do/can you do? Make it up as you go along. Start somewhere and keep > going, and after a while if that doesn't work, try somewhere and something > else... > > But there's no algorithm for this. Just as there is, or was, no algorithm > for your putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together (a much simpler, > more tightly defined problem). You just got stuck in. Somewhere. Anywhere > reasonable. > > Algorithms, from a human POV, are for literal people who have to "do things > by the book" - people with a "compulsive obsessional disorder" - who can't > bear to confront a blank page. :).V useful *after* you've solved a problem, > but not in the beginning > > There are no physical, computational, mechanical reasons why machines can't > be designed on these principles - to proceed with rough ideas of what to do, > freely consulting and combining options and looking around for fresh ones, > as they go along, rather than following a preprogrammed list. > > P.S. Nothing in this is strictly "random" - as in a narrow AI, randomly, > blindly. working its way through a preprogrammed list. You only try options > that are appropriate - routes that appear likely to lead to your goal. I > would call this "unstructured" but not (blindly) random thinking. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
