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 answer as output. > You may say > that there is still an algorithm (or many algorithms) in the system, which > take many other factors into account in producing answers, which I agree > (simply because that is how NARS is coded), but still, there is no single > algorithm that is soly responsible for the question-answering process, and > that is the point.
Pei!! I get the feeling you are using a very nonstandard definition of "algorithm" !! >The cooperations of many algorithms, under the > influence > of many factors beside the current input, is not necessarily equivalent to > an algorithm, or a Turing machine, as defined in the Theory of > Computation. > The main idea in Turing Computation is that the machine serves as > a function > that maps each input uniquely into an output. Intelligence, with its > adaptivity and flexivity, should not been seen as such a fixed mapping. No!!! Consider a Turing machine with three tapes: * input * output * internal state Then the correct statement is that the Turing machine maps each (input, internal state) pair into a unique output. This is just like NARS. If you know its input and its internal state, you can predict its output. (Remember, even if there is a quasi-random number generator in there, this generator is actually a deterministic algorithm whose output can be predicted based on its current state). The mapping from NARS into a 3-tape Turing machine is more natural than the mapping from NARS into a standard 1-tape Turing machine. BUT, it is well-known that there is bisimulation between 3-tape and 1-tape Turing machines. This bisimulation result shows that NARS can be mapped into a 1-tape Turing machine... The bisimulation between 3-tape and 1-tape Turing machines is expensive, but that only shows that the interpretation of NARS as a 1-tape Turing machine is *awkward and unnatural*, not that it is impossible. > I'm not asking about whether it "could" --- of course I can image an > algorithm that does nothing but take my email as input, and produce the > above reply of yours as output. I just don't believe it is how your mind > works. For one thing, to use an algorithm to solve a problem means, by > definition, if I repeat the question, you'll repeat the answer. > Since I know > you in person, I'm sure you are more adaptive than that. ;-) You should broaden your definition of algorithms to include algorithms with memory. This is standard in CS too -- e.g. the theory of stack automata... You should say "to use a deterministic algorithm to solve a problem means, by definition, if I repeat the question and you have the same internal state as the first time I asked the question, you'll repeat the answer." Shane has a memory. So does a simple stack automaton. But they're both basically deterministic robots ;-) [though Shane has more capability to amplify "chance" (i.e. too complex for the observer to understand) fluctuations into big patterns than a simple stack automaton, which is related with his greater degree of "consciousness"...] -- ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
