Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Mike, You have mischaracterized cog sci. It does not say the things you claim it does. What you are actually trying to attack was a particular view of AI (not cog sci) in which everything is symbolic in a particular kind of way. That stuff is just a straw man. Cog sci in general encourages a wide range of different theories of cognition, and the one that you vaguely describe is easily part of teh cog sci mainstream. Richard Loosemore Mike Tintner wrote: I think I've found a simple test of cog. sci. I take the basic premise of cog. sci. to be that the human mind - and therefore its every activity, or sequence of action - is programmed. Eric Baum epitomises cog. sci.Baum proposes [in What Is Thought] that underlying mind is a complex but compact program that corresponds to the underlying structure of the world.. As you know, I contend that that is absurd - that, yes, every human activity - having a conversation, writing a post, making love, doing a drawing etc - is massively subprogrammed, containing often v. large numbers of routines - but as a whole, each activity is a free composition. Those routines, along with isolated actions, are more or less freely thrown together - freely associated . As a whole, our activities are more or less crazy walks - I use crazy to mean both structured and chaotic - and effectively self-contradictory. (This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities). So how to test cog sci? I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is to record humans' actual streams of thought about any problem - like, say, writing an essay - and even just a minute's worth will show that, actually, humans have major difficulties following anything like a joined-up, rational train of thought - or any stream that looks remotely like it could be programmed overall. (That includes more esoteric forms of programming like random kinds). Actually, humans follow more or less roving, crazy streams of thought - not chaotic by any means, but not perfectly joined up either - more or less free-form, a bit like free verse - somewhat structured but only loosely). I still think that this is the proper, essential approach to studying the connectedness, programmed or otherwise, of human thought. But it is obviously a complicated affair - even if one could record those streams of thought absolutely faithfully. And science likes simple tests/ experiments - the more mathematical and measurable the better. So here's a simple mathematical test, which everyone can try. Do an abstract line drawing. (for let's say 30 secs. - on this particular site) Here are a few of my spontaneous masterpieces: http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_194101926_970043768_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_194033348_926554557_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_193922629_715992016_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_193734879_1708083161_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . The beauty of this site is that it does indeed record the actual stream of thought/ drawing - and not just the end result. (It would be v. interesting to see many other people's tests). Now you guys are mathematicians - I contend that those drawings are indeed crazy, spontaneous, free compositions - they have themes and patterns in parts and are by no means entirely random, but they are certainly not patterned or programmed overall either. Can you find an overall pattern or program to any of them - let alone a program that underlies ALL of them? Or, if you prefer, can you find a suite of programs? (I guess a more formal way of expressing the test is that on any given page, it is possible to draw an infinite number of line drawings which are a) structured b) chaotic c) crazy (mixtures of both) - and, in principle, programmed or non-programmed. And to assert that human activities are programmed is, in the final analysis, to assert that there is no such thing as a crazy set of lines. But please comment). What this test shows, I believe, is the bleeding obvious - humans can and do produce truly spontaneous,crazy, nonprogrammed,ad hoc, unplanned sequences of action. Well, it should be
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
David Butler wrote: I would say that the best way to simulate human intelligence with diversity and creativity is to create not one AGI but many. The only way to insure diversity and natural selection like our own evolution is to simultaneously create multiple AGI's so that we have a better chance of the emergence of the best path for the evolution of friendly AGI. I am new to this list. Is there anyone out there who has addressed this issue? We have many people who are very gifted with math and science who are in the forefront of AGI, but random creativity and seat of the pants intuition is a really big part of human evolution. If we create multiple AGI's we have a chance that all of our traits are developed (in the same way that we are genetically programed) in some way to create a community of sorts that hopefully will be able to sustain our legacy of diversity and creative thought. Dave Butler Making one AGI is difficult, so really the friendliness problem and the question of how to make them creative (etc) already has to be confronted and solved before we create the first one. Creating multiple AGIs would then be an afterthought, rather than a solution to those problems. If, on the other hand, you are talking about the RD process that will go on during the creation of the first AGI, then I completely agree with you: we need to experiment with a range of mechanisms in order to find out how they behave (and that is very much part of my own program of research). But these will not be free-ranging AGIs that are allowed to evolve and interact in the real world. That would be very different from simply allowing everyone and their motheer to build a different type of AGI, then letting them all interact and compete to see which is the best. Richard Loosemore On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: I think I've found a simple test of cog. sci. I take the basic premise of cog. sci. to be that the human mind - and therefore its every activity, or sequence of action - is programmed. Eric Baum epitomises cog. sci.Baum proposes [in What Is Thought] that underlying mind is a complex but compact program that corresponds to the underlying structure of the world.. As you know, I contend that that is absurd - that, yes, every human activity - having a conversation, writing a post, making love, doing a drawing etc - is massively subprogrammed, containing often v. large numbers of routines - but as a whole, each activity is a free composition. Those routines, along with isolated actions, are more or less freely thrown together - freely associated . As a whole, our activities are more or less crazy walks - I use crazy to mean both structured and chaotic - and effectively self-contradictory. (This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities). So how to test cog sci? I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is to record humans' actual streams of thought about any problem - like, say, writing an essay - and even just a minute's worth will show that, actually, humans have major difficulties following anything like a joined-up, rational train of thought - or any stream that looks remotely like it could be programmed overall. (That includes more esoteric forms of programming like random kinds). Actually, humans follow more or less roving, crazy streams of thought - not chaotic by any means, but not perfectly joined up either - more or less free-form, a bit like free verse - somewhat structured but only loosely). I still think that this is the proper, essential approach to studying the connectedness, programmed or otherwise, of human thought. But it is obviously a complicated affair - even if one could record those streams of thought absolutely faithfully. And science likes simple tests/ experiments - the more mathematical and measurable the better. So here's a simple mathematical test, which everyone can try. Do an abstract line drawing. (for let's say 30 secs. - on this particular site) Here are a few of my spontaneous masterpieces: http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_194101926_970043768_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_194033348_926554557_gbrtranscript=_lscid= . http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?aFileType=_nolivecachesessionID=message=room_email=[EMAIL PROTECTED]from_name=mike tintner[EMAIL PROTECTED]to_name=aDrawingID=20080105_193922629_715992016_gbrtranscript=_lscid= .
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
On Jan 5, 2008 10:52 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I've found a simple test of cog. sci. I take the basic premise of cog. sci. to be that the human mind - and therefore its every activity, or sequence of action - is programmed. No. This is one perspective taken by some cognitive scientists. It does not characterize the field. (This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities). Spontaneous, creative self-organized activity is a key aspect of Novamente and many other AGI designs. So how to test cog sci? I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is to record humans' actual streams of thought about any problem - like, say, writing an essay - and even just a minute's worth will show that, actually, humans have major difficulties following anything like a joined-up, rational train of thought - or any stream that looks remotely like it could be programmed overall. A) While introspection is certainly a valid and important tool for inspiring work in AI and cog sci, it is not a test of anything. There is much empirical evidence showing that humans' introspections of their own cognitive processes are highly partial and inaccurate. For instance, if we were following the arithmetic algorithms that we think we are, there is no way the timing of our responses when solving arithmetic problems would come out the way they actually do. (I don't have the references for this work at hand, but I saw it years ago in the Journal of Math Psych I believe.) B) Whether something looks like it's following a simple set of rules doesn't mean much. Chaotic underlying dynamics can give rise to high-level orderly behavior; and simple systems of rules can give rise to apparently disorderly, incomprehensibly complex behaviors. Cf the whole field of complex-systems dynamics. -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82365583-966081
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
I don't really understand what you mean by programmed ... nor by creative You say that, according to your definitions, a GA is programmed and ergo cannot be creative... How about, for instance, a computer simulation of a human brain? That would be operated via program code, hence it would be programmed -- so would you consider it intrinsically noncreative? Could you please define your terms more clearly? thx ben On Jan 6, 2008 1:21 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MT: This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities). Ben: Spontaneous, creative self-organized activity is a key aspect of Novamente and many other AGI designs. Ben, You are saying that your pet presumably works at times in a non-programmed way - spontaneously and creatively? Can you explain briefly the computational principle(s) behind this, and give an example of where it's applied, (exploration of an environment, say)? This strikes me as an extremely significant, even revolutionary claim to make, and it would be a pity if, as with your analogy claim, you simply throw it out again without any explanation. And I'm wondering whether you are perhaps confused about this, (or I have confused you) - in the way you definitely are below. Genetic algorithms, for example, and suchlike classify as programmed and neither truly spontaneous nor creative. Note that Baum asked me a while back what test I could provide that humans engage in free thinking. He, quite rightly, thought it a scientifically significant claim to make, that demanded scientific substantiation. My test is not a test, I stress though, of free will. But have you changed your mind about this? It's hard though not a complete contradiction to believe in a mind being spontaneously creative and yet not having freedom of decision. MT: I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is to record humans' actual streams of thought about any problem Ben: While introspection is certainly a valid and important tool for inspiring work in AI and cog sci, it is not a test of anything. Ben, This is a really major - and very widespread - confusion. A recording of streams of thought is what it says - a direct or recreated recording of a person's actual thoughts. So, if I remember right, some form of that NASA recording of subvocalisation when someone is immediately thinking about a problem, would classify as a record of their thoughts. Introspection is very different - it is a report of thoughts, remembered at a later, often much later time. A record(ing) might be me saying I want to kill you, you bastard in an internal daydream. Introspection might be me reporting later: I got very angry with him in my mind/ daydream. Huge difference. An awful lot of scientists think, quite mistakenly, that the latter is the best science can possibly hope to do. Verbal protocols - getting people to think aloud about problems - are a sort of halfway house (or better). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82398434-a3e5d5
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Benjamin Goertzel wrote: I don't really understand what you mean by programmed ... nor by creative You say that, according to your definitions, a GA is programmed and ergo cannot be creative... How about, for instance, a computer simulation of a human brain? That would be operated via program code, hence it would be programmed -- so would you consider it intrinsically noncreative? Could you please define your terms more clearly? thx ben Creativity is a byproduct of analogical reasoning, or abstraction. It has nothing to do with symbols or genetic algorithms! GA is too computationally complex to generate creative solutions. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82421095-927e7e
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
On Jan 6, 2008 3:07 PM, a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Creativity is a byproduct of analogical reasoning, or abstraction. It has nothing to do with symbols or genetic algorithms! GA is too computationally complex to generate creative solutions. care to explain what sounds so absolute as to certainly be wrong? Is the brain too compurationally complex to generate creative solutions? (scare quotes persisted) Or are you suggesting that GA is more computationally complex than your brain? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82423813-676f3c
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Ben, Sounds like you may have missed the whole point of the test - though I mean no negative comment by that - it's all a question of communication. A *program* is a prior series or set of instructions that shapes and determines an agent's sequence of actions. A precise itinerary for a journey. Even if the programmer doesn't have a full but only a very partial vision of that eventual sequence or itinerary. (The agent of course can be either the human mind or a computer). If the mind works by *free composition,* then it works v. differently - though this is an idea that has still to be fleshed out, and could take many forms. The first crucial difference is that there is NO PRIOR SERIES OR SET OF INSTRUCTIONS - saves a helluva lot on both space and programming work. Rather the mind works principally by free association - making up that sequence of actions/ journey AS IT GOES ALONG. So my very crude idea of this is you start, say, with a feeling of hunger, which = go get food. And immediately you go to the fridge. But only then, when the right food isn't there, do you think: in what other place could food be. And you may end up going various places, and/or asking various people, and/or consulting various sources of information, and/or doing things that you don't normally do like actually cooking/preparing various dishes, or looking under sofas or going to a restaurant- but there was no initial program in your brain for the actual journey you undertake, which is simply thrown together ad hoc and can take many different courses. Rather like an actual Freudian chain of free word associations, where there cannot possibly be a prior program (or would anyone disagree?) (Any given journey, though, may involve many well-established routines). As opposed to an initial AI-style program with complete set of instructions, I suggest, the mind in undertaking activities, has normally only the roughest of briefs outlining a goal, together with a rough, abstract and very, even extremely, incomplete sketch of the journey to be undertaken. A program is essentially a detailed blueprint for a house. A free composition is a very rough sketchy outline to begin with, that is freely filled in as you go along . Evolution and development seem to work more on the latter principle - remember Dawkins' idea of them as like an airplane built in mid-flight - though our physical development, while definitely having considerable degrees of freedom as to possible physiques, is vastly more constrained than our physical and mental activities. None of the many activities of writing a program that you have undertaken - as distinct from the programs themselves - was, I suggest, remotely preprogrammed itself. Writing a program like any creative activity - writing a story/musical piece/ drawing a picture or producing a design - is a free composition. A crazy walk. Genetic algorithms are indeed programs and function v. differently from human creativity. They proceed along predefined lines. Nothing crazy about them. If they produce surprising results, it is only because the programmer didn't have the capacity to think through the consequences of his instructions. Now note here - heavily underlined several times - I have only gone into free composition, in order to give you something more or less vivid to contrast with the idea of a program. But the point of my test is NOT to elucidate the idea of free composition- I don't have to do that - it is to test hopefully destroy the idea of the mind being driven by neat prior sets of instructions - even pace Richard or genetic algorithms, v. complex sets of instructions. Does that make the program/free composition distinction - the point of the test - clearer, regardless of how you may agree/disagree? Ben: I don't really understand what you mean by programmed ... nor by creative You say that, according to your definitions, a GA is programmed and ergo cannot be creative... How about, for instance, a computer simulation of a human brain? That would be operated via program code, hence it would be programmed -- so would you consider it intrinsically noncreative? Could you please define your terms more clearly? thx ben On Jan 6, 2008 1:21 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MT: This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities). Ben: Spontaneous, creative self-organized activity is a key aspect of Novamente and many other AGI designs. Ben, You are saying that your pet presumably works at times in a non-programmed way - spontaneously and creatively? Can you explain briefly the computational principle(s) behind this, and give an example of where it's applied, (exploration of an environment, say)? This strikes
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
On Jan 6, 2008 4:00 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, Sounds like you may have missed the whole point of the test - though I mean no negative comment by that - it's all a question of communication. A *program* is a prior series or set of instructions that shapes and determines an agent's sequence of actions. A precise itinerary for a journey. Even if the programmer doesn't have a full but only a very partial vision of that eventual sequence or itinerary. (The agent of course can be either the human mind or a computer). OK, then any AI that is implemented in computer software is by your definition a programmed AI. Whether it is based on GA's, neural nets, logical theorem-proving or whatever. So, is your argument that digital computer programs can never be creative, since you have asserted that programmed AI's can never be creative? -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82448475-4978a0
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Benjamin Goertzel wrote: So, is your argument that digital computer programs can never be creative, since you have asserted that programmed AI's can never be creative Hard-wired AI (such as KB, NLP, symbol systems) cannot be creative. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82459047-c3be62
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Mike, The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can be creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of enquiry, a predetermined approach to a problem - ... But I see no reason why computers couldn't be briefed rather than programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working along predetermined lines. But the computer that is being briefed is still running some software program, hence is still programmed -- and its responses are still determined by that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it perceives only thru a digital bit stream) I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable of all the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) that are also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence. I don't know how you define a literally imaginative power. So, it seems like you are saying -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess general intelligence Is this your assertion? It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others have argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted could be straight out of The Emeperor's New Mind by Penrose. Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general intelligence is possible only for quantum gravity computers, which is what he posits the brain is. I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what he is saying... I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is... thx Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82464788-e73a96
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
Well we (Penrose co) are all headed in roughly the same direction, but we're taking different routes. If you really want the discussion to continue, I think you have to put out something of your own approach here to spontaneous creativity (your terms) as requested. Yes, I still see the mind as following instructions a la briefing, but only odd ones, not a whole rigid set of them., a la programs. And the instructions are open-ended and non-deterministically open to interpretation, just as my briefing/instruction to you - Ben go and get me something nice for supper - is. Oh, and the instructions that drive us, i.e. emotions, are always conflicting, e.g [Ben:] I might like to.. but do I really want to get that bastard anything for supper? Or have the time to, when I am on the very verge of creating my stupendous AGI? Listen, I can go on and on - the big initial deal is the claim that the mind isn't - no successful AGI can be - driven by a program, or thoroughgoing SERIES/SET of instructions - if it is to solve even minimal general adaptive, let alone hard creative problems. No structured approach will work for an ill-structured problem. You must give some indication of how you think a program CAN be generally adaptive/ creative - or, I would argue, squares (programs are so square, man) can be circled :). Mike, The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can be creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of enquiry, a predetermined approach to a problem - ... But I see no reason why computers couldn't be briefed rather than programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working along predetermined lines. But the computer that is being briefed is still running some software program, hence is still programmed -- and its responses are still determined by that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it perceives only thru a digital bit stream) I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable of all the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) that are also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence. I don't know how you define a literally imaginative power. So, it seems like you are saying -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess general intelligence Is this your assertion? It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others have argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted could be straight out of The Emeperor's New Mind by Penrose. Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general intelligence is possible only for quantum gravity computers, which is what he posits the brain is. I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what he is saying... I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is... - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82482150-8495ed
Re: [agi] A Simple Mathematical Test of Cog Sci.
If you believe in principle that no digital computer program can ever be creative, then there's no point in me or anyone else rambling on at length about their own particular approach to digital-computer-program creativity... One question I have is whether you would be convinced that digital programs ARE capable of true creativity, by any possible actual achievements of digital computer programs... If a digital computer program made a great painting, wrote a great novel, proved a great theorem, patented dozens of innovative inventions, etc. -- would you be willing to admit it's creative, or would you argue that due to its digital nature, it must have achieved these things in a noncreative way? Ben On Jan 6, 2008 6:58 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well we (Penrose co) are all headed in roughly the same direction, but we're taking different routes. If you really want the discussion to continue, I think you have to put out something of your own approach here to spontaneous creativity (your terms) as requested. Yes, I still see the mind as following instructions a la briefing, but only odd ones, not a whole rigid set of them., a la programs. And the instructions are open-ended and non-deterministically open to interpretation, just as my briefing/instruction to you - Ben go and get me something nice for supper - is. Oh, and the instructions that drive us, i.e. emotions, are always conflicting, e.g [Ben:] I might like to.. but do I really want to get that bastard anything for supper? Or have the time to, when I am on the very verge of creating my stupendous AGI? Listen, I can go on and on - the big initial deal is the claim that the mind isn't - no successful AGI can be - driven by a program, or thoroughgoing SERIES/SET of instructions - if it is to solve even minimal general adaptive, let alone hard creative problems. No structured approach will work for an ill-structured problem. You must give some indication of how you think a program CAN be generally adaptive/ creative - or, I would argue, squares (programs are so square, man) can be circled :). Mike, The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can be creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of enquiry, a predetermined approach to a problem - ... But I see no reason why computers couldn't be briefed rather than programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working along predetermined lines. But the computer that is being briefed is still running some software program, hence is still programmed -- and its responses are still determined by that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it perceives only thru a digital bit stream) I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable of all the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) that are also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence. I don't know how you define a literally imaginative power. So, it seems like you are saying -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess general intelligence Is this your assertion? It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others have argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted could be straight out of The Emeperor's New Mind by Penrose. Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general intelligence is possible only for quantum gravity computers, which is what he posits the brain is. I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what he is saying... I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is... - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=82484935-6a7f84
