On 19/10/2007, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that there really needs to be more very specifically defined > quantitative measures of intelligence. If there were questions that could be > asked of an AGI that would require x units of intelligence to solve > otherwise they would be unsolvable.
I do not think such things are possible. Any problem that we know about and can define, can be solved with a giant look up table, or more realistically, calculated by an unlearning TM. Unless you are of the opinion that learning is unnecessary for intelligence? In which case what you want may be possible. Any appearance of learning can also be faked by GLUT and unlearning TMs, using time as an input. If you want to rigorously define intelligence, you will need to look at how the internals change and base a definition on that. My current thinking is based on which search spaces the system moves through while trying to map input to output, and how it makes use of information from the outside to change what it does. Will Pearson ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=55533932-7eb80c
