Several emails ago, both Ben and Richard said they were no longer going to
continue this argument, yet here they are - still arguing. Will the definition
of intelligence be able to accomodate this behavior by these gentlemen?
Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- When you try to cash out that compression function, I claim, you
will end up in a situation where the system's real world behavior
depends on exactly which 'patterns' it chooses to go hunting for, and
how it deploys them. The devil is in the details that you do not
specify here, so any decision about whether this formalism really is
coextensive with commonsense intelligence is pure speculation.
I don't really understand your response...
What I said, in less formal terms, is:
1) intelligence is defined as the ability to optimize complex functions
2) complexity of a function is defined as "having lots of patterns
in its graph"
3) to make 2 operational, you need to specify it as "having lots of
patterns in its graph, according to pattern-recognizer S"
Which step does your response pertain to? The patterns hunted by
the system whose intelligence is being defined (in 1), or the patterns
hunted by the system S assessing the intelligence (in 3) ??
Ben G
---------------------------------
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/?&;
-----
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
