Once again, the interesting question is not Is NARS a TM?, but
Is NARS a
TM with respect to problem P? If the problem is To answer
Ben's email on
`AI and compuation', then the system is not a TM (though it may
be a TM in
many other senses). For this reason, to discuss the computability
Pei Wang wrote:
In my opinion, one of the most common mistakes made by people is to think AI
in terms of computability and computational complexity, using concepts like
Turing machine, algorithm, and so on. For a long argument, see
http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/551-PT/Lecture/Computation.pdf.
Shane Legg wrote, responding to Pei Wang:
Perhaps where our difference is best highlighted is in the
following quote that you use:
“something can be computational at one level,
but not at another level” [Hofstadter, 1985]
To this I would say: Something can LOOK like computation
in solving it? What is the
computational complexity of this process?
Pei
- Original Message -
From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] AI and computation (was: The Next Wave)
Pei Wang wrote:
In my opinion, one
Pei:
For that level issue, one way to see it is through the concept
of virtual
machine. We all know that at a low level computer only has procedural
language and binary data, but at a high level it has
non-procedural language
(such as functional or logical languages) and decimal data.
- Original Message -
From: Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] AI and computation (was: The Next Wave)
Hi Pei,
One issue that make that version of the paper controversial is the term
computation, which
Pei wrote:
Right. Again let's use NARS as a concrete example. It can answer
questions,
but if you ask the same question twice to the system at different
time, you
may get different answers. In this sense, there is no algorithm that takes
the question as input, and produces an unique
