>From whence do you get the idea that there is no relationship between the low-level mechanisms and the overall behavior? Even if the relationship is horrendously confusing, it must exist if the entire thing is to be described as a "system"; if there is no relationship between the mechanisms and the overall behavior, then the mechanisms could be destroyed by H-Bomb and the behavior would continue unchanged, in which case the mechanisms aren't really mechanisms. As for the existence of a mathematically analyzable relationship, I presume that we're talking about systems implemented in atoms, and the physicists have already proven that all known relations between atoms are mathematically analyzable.
- Tom --- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Mahoney wrote: > > > Richard, > > > > I looked at your 2006 AGIRI talk, the one I > believe you referenced in our > > previous discussion on the definition of > intelligence, > > > http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=21&t=137 > > > > You use the description "complex adaptive system", > which I agree is a > > reasonable definition of intelligence. You also > assert that mathematics is > > useless for the analysis of complex systems. > Again I agree. But I don't > > understand your criticism of Shane's work. After > all, he is the one who > > proved the correctness of your assertion. > > The abstract on the AGIRI website is a poor shadow > of the paper that > will be published in the proceedings: I will send a > copy of that paper > to you offlist. > > The term "complex adaptive system" has very specific > connotations that I > think you have missed here: I was not using it as > definition of > intelligence. It refers to a general type of system > that has a very > particular kind of relation between the low-level > mechanisms that drive > the system and the overall behavior of the system. > In a CAS (or, if you > prefer, in a "complex system") there is no analytic > relationship between > the low level mechanisms and the overall behavior. > Basically, you > cannot solve the equations and derive the global > behavior. This is the > sense in which "mathematics is useless for the > analysis of complex systems". > > In essence, I assert that "intelligence" is > something that we can > observe in certain systems (namely, in us), but that > it is a high-level > characteristic of what is actually a complex system, > and so it cannot be > defined precisely, only observed. You can give > "descriptive" > definitions, but not closed-form definitions that > can be used (for > example) as the basis for a mathematical proof of > the properties of > intelligent systems in general. > > The full argument is much more detailed, of course, > but that is the core > of it. > > Oh, and: Shane is *not* the one who proved the > correctness of my > assertion! I am not sure where you got that from. > ;-) > > > Richard Loosemore. > > ----- > 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/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front ----- 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=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
