Mike Tintner wrote:
JVPB:You seem to have missed what many A(G)I people (Ben, Richard, etc.)
mean by 'complexity' (as opposed to the common usage of complex meaning
difficult).
Well, I as an ignoramus, was wondering about this - so thankyou. And it
wasn't clear at all to me from Richard's paper what he meant.
Well, to be fair to me, I pointed out in a footnote at the very
beginning of the paper that the term "complex system" was being sued in
the technical sense, and then shortly afterwards I gave some references
to anyone who needed to figure out what that technical sense actually was...
Could I have done more?
Look up the Waldrop book that I gave as a reference: at least that is a
nice non-technical read.
Richard Loosemore
What I'm
taking out from your account is that it involves random inputs...? Is
there a fuller account of it? Is it the random dimension that he/others
hope will produce emergent/human-like behaviour? (..because if so, I'd
disagree - I'd argue the complications of human behaviour flow from
conflict/ conflicting goals - which happens to be signally missing from
his (and cognitive science's) ideas about emotions).
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=73179225-6ab0e8
