Mike, On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Abram, > > I don't understand why.how I need to argue an alternative - please explain.
I am not sure what to say, but here is my view of the situation. You are claiming that there is a broad range of things that algorithmic systems cannot do. You gave some examples. William took a couple of these examples and argued that they are routinely done by multi-tasking systems. You say that those methods do not really count, because they reduce to normal computation. I say that that is not a valid response, because that was exactly Will's point, that they do reduce to normal computations. To make your objection work, you need to argue that humans do not do the same sort of thing when we change our minds about something. > If it helps, a deterministic, programmed machine can, at any given point, > only follow one route through a given territory or problem space or maze - > even if surprising & *appearing* to halt/deviate from the plan - to the > original, less-than-omniscient-of-what-he-hath-wrought programmer. (A > fundamental programming problem, right?) A creative free machine, like a > human, really can follow any of what may be a vast range of routes - and you > really can't predict what it will do or, at a basic level, be surprised by > it. It still sounds like you are describing physical randomness. --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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
