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