On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
