On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > Would you agree that the universal dovetailer would get the job done? >
I'm not exactly sure what job you're referring to and Bruno's use of a carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of sense to me. >> Turing tells us we'll never find a algorithm that works perfectly on all >> problems all of the time, so we'll just have to settle for an algorithm >> that works pretty well on most problems most of the time. >> > > > Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable > algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it must > exist, because our brains contain it. > We haven't found it yet because intelligence is hard, after all it took Evolution over 3 billion years to find it and we've only been looking for about 50. But Evolution is very very slow and very very stupid so I would be a bit surprised if we find it in the next 10 years but astounded if we don't find it in the next 100. > > you're thinking of smartness as some unidimensional quantity. > No I'm not, I think it's crazy to think intelligence can be measured by a scalar (like IQ) when even something a simple as the wind is composed of a vector with 2 variables, speed and direction. To measure the most complicated thing in the universe, intelligence, I expect you'd need a tensor, and a very big one. But I don't think it will be long before computers have more intelligence than any human who ever lived using any measure of intelligence you care to name. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.