Mike, > The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can be > creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of enquiry, a > predetermined approach to a problem - ... > But I see no reason why computers couldn't be "briefed" rather than > programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working along > predetermined lines.
But the computer that is being "briefed" is still running some software program, hence is still "programmed" -- and its responses are still determined by that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it perceives only thru a digital bit stream) > I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable of all > the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) that are > also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence. I don't know how you define a "literally imaginative power". So, it seems like you are saying -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess general intelligence Is this your assertion? It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others have argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted could be straight out of "The Emeperor's New Mind" by Penrose. Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general intelligence is possible only for "quantum gravity computers", which is what he posits the brain is. I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what he is saying... I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is... thx Ben ----- 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=82464788-e73a96
