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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
