Russell, - interesting idea and I appreciate it within the line I don't really appreciate. I pretend to be one of the 'research oriented' - I am reluctant of saying "scientist" - which may fit into a robot-performed activity. In the commi administration I had a pretty free hand to come up with ideas - and perform them (THEN the administration denied the money usually, but sometimes I could circumvent them and implement my thing as a private enterprise in the commi framework). The 'robotic' in my mind looks still as working on a fixed basis (software-memory?) even if it produces unexpected relations ((among them!!)). I worked with 'free' ideas what nobody thought of (hence my 38 patents and numerous industrial implementations) and the main question was: what would THAT do in practice? (No base-line to build on). When I worked with Ciba-Geigy in the US (post 1975), a 'young' manager said: "I don't really understand what John works upon" (when I had my 3rd patent disclosure with the company) and I said: - work with me for another 20 years, you may catch up. I wonder if a 'robot' can produce a "noch nie dagewesen" (Ger. for brand new) unrelated idea? I find a computer-related research limited to the keywords, while a 'free' browsing in a good library presents a topical domain side by side on the shelves furthermore: you put down the open page while looking into another book. I found it restrictive in computer-search, with clicking back to even task-bar stored preliminaries while pursuing a side-track. Thjis difference is knowable to the 'old generation' of researchers. Whoever grew up on the use of comuters, does not know about the benefits of NOT using a "robot". It is "human" unrealised freedom allowing one's (weird?) fantasy. Maybe it is only the disadvantage of our prmitive, embryonic binary system? Would you expect better esults from a 'true' *analogue* (relational?) computing (non-digital that is)? It may be 'beyond' the *language*, a 24ary system in English (41ary in Hungarian and I could not identify it in Oriental etc. languages) where the rules of the 'software' are like syntax, grammar and meaning, maybe more, - but still formalizable *rules.*
I appreciate Colin and borrowed from him the (mini)-solipsist "perceived reality" term. Every mind is different genetically with its earlier stored (personal) experience base, - accordingly no two persons think identically about the portion of the world that transpires into anyone's mind. Maybe I am too old and inflexible to absorb the total bliss of AI (AL?) and look for more? Is there an "UN-memory" workable in these systems? John M On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:18 AM, russell standish <[email protected]>wrote: > This article made me think immediately about Colin, and his very own > proof that this is not possible. Of course I'm sure he is talking > about something completely different :). > > http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/download-robot-scientist/ > > Cheers > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
