excuse me if I suggest some circularity in you reply. A "learning machine"
is by def. learning SOMETHING and that SOMETHING comes from its inside, if
we do not specify an 'outside' it may explore (which would not be *learning*,
rather *exploring* - a quite different ballgame - maybe followed by 'and
*The applied (ball)game of 'machine' (substituted for 'learning machine',
excluded per se from the 'exploring' function) reminds me of the puzzle of
my midle-school grandkid: which word is the ONE spelled always incorrectly
in every good dictionary? (My wife found it out, immediately, not me). For
the lucky guessers I allow a Coke on NewYear's Eve at his own expense, of
It depends on 'machine'. Independent? that. too, has to be explained. Maybe
Your question: "Can a machine find a new thing(?)". I refer to Russell's
"patentable" which I wanted to address: a 'new' ('patentably new'?) thing is
not necessarily a (sorry for the Ger.) "noch nie dagewesen" - it can be not
yet described (but knowable - a new combination of elements usually applied
for different patterns etc.). A good example is in this thread about
"electricity" as NOT describable to a medieval scientist: it might have been
"brand new" and unknown, but it still fits into the 'knowables', so I think
about more 'real' novelty.
E.g. cousins of the Milky Way in outer space before the telescope. That did
not fit into the Flat Earth views. - A 'better mousetrap' IS 'patentable
I agree with your ending: " How to define "new", [for example]. It is a
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2009, at 23:16, russell standish wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:54:53AM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
> >> I wonder if a 'robot' can produce a "noch nie dagewesen" (Ger. for
> >> brand
> >> new) unrelated idea?
> > I do know Hod Lipson from the ALife community, but am not familiar
> > with this particular piece of research. From the WIRED article, I
> > understand this to be a particular implementation of inductive
> > reasoning by machine. It is impressive enough that this is possible,
> > but I don't for one minute think that they have approached the
> > creative power of a human being. But it certainly feasible that humans
> > are really just more so of what this machine does.
> > Still, the whole area of machine learning, and minimum length
> > description has some very interesting surprises in store, which is why
> > I've never bought Colin's argument. For instance John Koza's genetic
> > programs have created several electronic circuits, some of which were
> > patentable, so fit the requirement of noch nicht dagewesen.
> And there is the whole computational learning theory which shows that
> machine learners exists.
> Even universal learners exists, but the proofs are necessarily non
> constructive. We cannot recognize such machine even if we are in front
> of them.
> There are a lot of amazing theorems in that field. For example the
> theorem of Blum and Blum, which says that there is something
> infinitely (even non computably) more clever (in learning) than any
> machine: a couple of (independent) machines!
> Learning machines exist, and the theory explains why we cannot build
> them from scratch. Some form of learning-competence can need
> intrinsically long computations/histories, but once there, they can
> Can a machine find a new thing. Of course, from I said above. Can we
> judge if a machine has find something new? This is hard to say. It is
> even hard to judge this in a definitive way with the discoveries made
> by humans. It would need many formal criteria in a place where
> formalization is difficult. How to define "new", for example. It is a
> relative concept.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at