On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
The job of overcoming the issues introduced by the halting problem. > and Bruno's use of a > carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of > sense to me. Bruno did not invent the term "dovetailing" nor is he the only person to use it in computer science. A simple google search will show you this. I know you're a smart guy and understand the metaphor, so you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Do you also disapprove of the use of a sewing term to describe a type of computation (threading)? > >>> >> 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. Maybe. Or maybe the algorithm is too complex for human intelligence to grasp. >> >> > 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. Even if this level of intelligence is attained by non-evolutionary means? You might be right -- I wonder if advanced intelligence necessarily bootstraps some form of evolution. Telmo. > 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. -- 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.
