>> I don't like this so much, because two sets of world-states with equal
>> measure (size) may have very different complexity...
I don't believe so because "complex" world states are by definition larger
since they have more variables to vary (and thus more points/states/variables).
It is true that one "complex" world-state is equivalent to multiple "simple"
world states, but this is just the behavior that I desire/expect for my
definition.
If you're sure that I'm wrong, please provide an example . . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence
On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which
>>> things are more intelligent than others, and which does not
accidentally
>>> include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition
>>> (by false negatives or false positives)?
Wow. The silence was deafening after my last attempt . . . .
How about if I rephrase slightly dufferently as:
Intelligence is
the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity can
successfully reach
minus
the size of the space containing all world-states that the entity cannot
successfully avoid.
I don't like this so much, because two sets of world-states with equal
measure (size) may have very different complexity...
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
