Emergence of behavior through software
Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:08:19 -0500
> I got into this originally because I did not care for the "tone"
> of Fare's statements which seem to suggest that somehow software
> could transcend itself. The issue with respect to "true" AI lies
> in transcending from a non-conscious (and non-intelligent) mode
> into a conscious one with intelligence. In my view software
> cannot do this one its own.
Neither do most people. It will probably supprise the hell out of you to
hear me say that what I am doing right now is not an artifact of what I
would call intelligence. All I am doing in order to write is stringing
togeather behaviors the incredibly large human brain is capable of
learning. I am barely even thinking. Just spewing out text that was
generated by the vastly complex combinational network that is the brain.
Thought truly is a facinating subject. Its like a mote, small and
fleeting, that fixes up the network I describe above only when it fails.
That is when it does not have a ready answer. So even in this part of
the paragraph that is a little more difficult for me to write as this is
the first time I have written about this subject, the "thought to text
ratio" as it were is something on the order of 1:100 or less... =\
Man I'm stupid. =(
> Moreover it cannot occur on a von Neumann-based architecture
> obeying TM rules.
It may be computationally hard, probably easier to do on a Xilinx chip
but still possible. Stop being such a mystic!
If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website.
####### Begin Eschelon Block #######
unabomber anthrax plutonium militia delta force ruby ridge atf batf waco
oklahoma city assault rifle sog sof m-16 clinton marx crack m-60 c5 c7
mlk panthers FBI chemical weapons twa 800 roswell terrorist freedom