On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > It's rather funny: you could redefine computation to include natural > computation (through the natural causality that is electrodynamics as it > happens in brain material). Then you could claim computationalism to be > true. But you'd still behave the same: you'd be unable to get AGI from a > Turing machine. So you'd flush all traditional computers and make new > technology.... Computationalism would then be true but 100% useless as a > design decision mechanism. Frankly I'd rather make AGI that works than be > right according to a definition! The lesson is that there's no pracitcal > use in being right according to a definition! What you need to be able to do > is make successful choices. > So, then, the argument is pretty pointless, since it boils down to saying simply that some people believe that there exist tractable ways to make Turning Machines manifest AGI, and others that believe there are NOT tractable ways to make Turing Machines manifest AGI. And of course since neither can 'prove' their beliefs, discussions on the topic keep going around in circles. Or, am I missing something...? -dave ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
