J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that **there is no way for science to ever establish
the existence of a nonalgorithmic process**, because science deals
only with finite sets of finite-precision measurements.
I suppose it would be more accurate to state that every process we can
detect is algorithmic within the scope of our ability to measure it.
Like with belief in god(s) and similar, the point can then be raised
as to why we need to invent non-algorithmic processes when ordinary
algorithmic processes are sufficient to explain everything we see.
Non-algorithmic processes very conveniently have properties identical
to the "supernatural", and so I treat them similarly. This is just
another incarnation of the old "unpredictable versus random" discussions.
Sure, non-algorithmic processes could be running the mind machinery,
but then so could elves, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and
many other things that it is not necessary to invoke at this time.
Absent the ability to ever detect such things and lacking the
necessity of such explanations, I file non-algorithmic processes with
vast number of other explanatory memes of woo-ness of which humans are
fond.
Like the old man once said, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem".
Cheers,
J. Andrew Rogers
One of the tricks with Occam's razor is knowing when you've fallen foul
of it. Consider the logic:
(a) Human scientists are intelligent (a useful AGI benchmark) and made
of the natural world.
(b) Humans (scientists) model the natural world.
(c) The scientific models of the natural world are amenable to
algorithmic representation.
does NOT entail that
(d) systems that involve algorithmic representation will necessarily be
as intelligent as a human scientist (capable of human science).
Humans are not algorithmic representations or models of a scientist. We
are actual scientists. There's some kind of serious confusion going on
here between:
(i) intelligence capable of construction of algorithmic regularities
(humans)
and
(ii) intelligence made of the algorithmic regularities thus constructed
(a computationalist AGI)
(ii) requires subscription to a belief in something extra: that the
universe is constructed of abstractions or is a computer running the
laws of nature as a program or that magical emergentism is a law of
nature or any one of 100 other oddities.
Furthermore (i) does NOT entail that the universe is non-algorithmic! I
would say that the universe is an absolutely brilliant and wonderful
huge and exquisite algorithm. *But it's NOT a model of anything.* It IS
the thing itself. I choose to do (i) by using the same actual processes
that humans are. That /is/ capable of human intelligence (scientists).
/That I know for sure./ That is the only thing we know for sure. I also
know that I have to invent (believe) something unproven and extra to
make (ii) a route to AGI. Occam's razor prevents me from taking that
position.
So the argument cuts both ways!
1+1=FROG.
On the planet Blortlpoose the Prolog language does nothing but construct
cakes. :-)
This algorithmic nonsense was brought to you by the natural brain
electrodynamics of Colin Hales' brain.
and ALL of it (humans, Blortlpoose and cakes) is made of whatever the
universe is actually made of, which is NOT abstract representations
produced by itself of itself.
This is just going to go round and round as usual.... so I'll jump off
the merry-go-round for now.
*/Xmas is afoot! There's meaningless consumerism and pointless rituals
to be enacted! Massive numbers of turkeys and chickens must die! :-)/*
cheers
colin hales
-------------------------------------------
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=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
