> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] > > As I have explained elsewhere, our intelligent process is itself a very tiny > target zone in a very large search space, perhaps like a grain of sand on the > earth. These things CAN sometimes be found through random inductive > processes, but in our case it took ~150 million years or so of searching. > > Similarly, random induction CAN sometimes help solve some difficult > problems - it all depends on the relative sizes of the search space and the > target zones. For example, if MANY things must be properly positioned to > succeed, then induction will fail. Where the search space is much smaller, > e.g. "do I go straight past the obstacle and fall into the pit, or go around the > obstacle and avoid the pit?", induction works OK. > > That said, continue with your discussion that ignores the issues connected > with trying to directly duplicate emergent properties, as such efforts are > doomed to fail for reasons I have already explained. Perhaps you wish to > dump your careers down this same rat hole that SO many others have. > Perhaps my explanation was but pearls before swine? Did you understand it?
Steve, I wasn't really talking about duplicating specific natural emergent processes that took millions of years to occur. I'm thinking about new ones based on those 150+ million years of results.. :) John ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
