On 21 Jan 2014, at 01:05, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28:03AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the creativity question - it is still an open problem, ISTM.
I think this is solved. Creativity = Universality. (Turing
universality). Post gave a definition of "creativity", related to
Gödel's incompleteness. Then It has been shown equivalent with
universality.
Creativity, in Post sense, is a form of ability to compute limits,
and move to something else. It is related with the ability to refute
all theories about oneself (the universal dissidence).
Of course our laptops do not seem quite creative, but this is
because they are programmed that way. The universality is hidden by
the many aps. A bit like the over-heavy programs in some secondary
schools can suffocate the natural creativity of children.
It is not solved until someone demonstrates a computer program that
unambigously exhibits open-ended creativity. (Or someone proves this
is not possible, an outcome I think is unlikely).
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an open-ended creativity. Well, certainly in the sense
of Post (I can explain this, but it is a bit technical).
The best example I think of todate is some work by John Koza which
lead to some patents being awarded for electrical circuits designed by
a genetic programming algorithm. But such examples are still bounded
and rather limited scope.
OK.
I haven't had a chance to study and understand Post's definition (sure
I've looked at it, but didn't grok it), but if you say it is
equivalent to universality, then its not really going to contribute to
the solution.
I am not sure. Open ended creativity seems to me well captured by
Post. It makes the machine able to defeat all effective complete
theories about itself. It gives what I often called the comp vaccine
against reductionism.
This is a hard problem, though hopefully not as hard as "The Hard
Problem". It's resolution may give some insight on "The Hard
Problem", though :).
I think that comp provides the best solution possible to the hard
problem. We can come back on this.
There is just no solution to the "hard problem", but a meta-solution
explaining completely why there is no solution.
Bruno
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
