Mark Waser wrote:
Hi Bill,
...
If storage and access are the concern, your own argument says that
a sufficiently enhanced human can understand anything and I am at a
loss as to why an above-average human with a computer and computer
skills can't be considered nearly indefinitely enhanced.
The use of external aids doesn't allow one to increase the size of
"active ram". Usually this is no absolute barrier, though it can result
in exponential slowdown. Sometimes, however, I suspect that there are
problems that can't be addressed because the working memory is too
small. This isn't a thing that I could prove (and probably von Neuman
proved otherwise). So take "exponential slowdown to be what's involved,
though it might be combinatorial slowdown for some classes of problems.
This may not be an absolute barrier, but it is sufficient to effectively
be called one, especially given the expected lifetime of the person
involved. (After one has lived a few thousand years, one might perceive
this class of problems to be more tractable...but I'd bet they will be
addressed sooner by other means.)
Consider that we apparently have special purpose hardware for rotating
visual images. Given that, there MUST be a limit to the resolution that
this hardware possesses. (Well, I suspect that it rotates "vectorized"
images, and retranslates after rotation...but SOME pixelated image is
being rotated (they've watched it on PET[?] scans). This implies that
anything that requires more than that much detail to handle is fudged,
or just isn't handled. So the necessary enhancement would:
1) off-load the original image
2) rotate it, and
3) import the rotated image
Plausibly importation could be done via a 3-D monitor, though it might
take a lot of study. Exporting the original uncorrupted image, however,
is beyond the current state of the art.
I would argue that this is but one of a large class of problems that
cannot be addressed by the current modes of enhancement.
Regarding chess or Go masters -- while you couldn't point to a move
and say you shouldn't have done that, I'm sure that the master could
(probably in several instances) point to a move and say "I wouldn't
have done that" and provided a better move (most often along with a
variable-quality explanation of why it was a better move).
... Mark
----- Original Message ----- From: "BillK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
...
-----
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/?list_id=303
