Bruno, 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 learning *IT'*). *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 course.* It depends on 'machine'. Independent? that. too, has to be explained. Maybe B&B did.
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 and new'. I agree with your ending: " How to define "new", [for example]. It is a relative concept." Happy 2010 John M 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 > multiplied. > > 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. > > > Bruno > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.