Emergence of behavior through software

[Alan Grimes]

Lynn H. Maxson the moron wrote:
 
> Alan Grimes wrote:

>>[Thinking; Lynn thinks that computers can't.]

> It may be computationally hard, probably easier to do on a Xilinx
> chip but still possible. Stop being such a mystic!"

[on human's tendancy to function as a simple combinational circuit.] 
> "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. ..."
> 
> We seem to have a basic disagreement on definitions, specifically
> on "intelligence".

Intelligence is what allows an "intelligent agent" to function
autonomously without a designer or programmer tweaking the code every
twenty minutes. =P

>  Actually it did surprise the hell out of me
> that you would engage in stream of consciousness writing, aware of
> what you are writing as you are writing it, and not consider it or
> the decision to engage in it an "artifact" of intelligence.  Your
> very writing of it emphasises the limitations of software.

Say What? I thought my paragraph was reasonably well organized. Its
point was not that I was just typing away but the fact that it takes
practically no intelligence to spew text as both of us are doing at each
other. This response here is a perfect example of how you tend to
respond in the rudest possible way regardless of the thought that went
into what you are replying too. I was so upset with your thoughtlessness
and your grand pronouncements about things which you havn't gotten the
slightest clue I wanted to whack you on the side of the head. =P Instead
I just cussed you out. ;) 
 
> As to the charge of "mystic" I'm the one for whom there is no
> magic in software.

nor in the brain. 

> I know of no why of writing other than logic-based, rule-based 
> software. 

Rule based software is called "heuristic". Heuristics should only be
used when a general ALGORITHM is impossible. In other words most
programmers implement PATTERNS of thinking in their programs. In
languages such as lisp, you can edit algorithms IN FLIGHT!!! So just
because YOU CAN'T PROGRAM WORTH SHIT Or even Microsoft for that matter.
Doesn't mean that it can't be done. ;)

> While a TM may not concern itself with the decision-making process with
> respect to executing an instruction or not (and thus a sequence or
> not) no HLL from symbolic assembler on up has such freedom.

You have never programmed. Ever. 
Do not tallk about which you know nothing.


> Something without a "will" cannot will itself into such a state anymore 
> than than something with one can will it away.  

So I implement "will" as a decision function that decides the "goodness"
of an activity. The system will then exhibit a strong prefferance
twoards "good" activities.

A system with such a function would exhibit a very strong "will". 
That is fairly easy.

> The same holds for non-conscious to conscious, for non-intelligence to 
> intelligence, for non-random to random, and for non-algorithmic to 
> algorithmic.

For ever and ever amen. 
Shut up mystic. =\ 

All conscious animals have arisen from previous non-conscious animals. 
BANG!!! 
Every child learns its intelect thereby acquiring inteligence. 
BANG!!!
A very complex DETERMINISTIC system can produce high-entropy, practicaly
random numbers... Such an algorithm is in my Assembly for dweebs book. 
BANG!!!
The last one doesn't make much sense but there are already enuff holes
in his sermon. =P

> It's not a matter of being computationally hard.  It is a matter
> of being computationally impossible.

Yeah? 
Then how do our brains work? 
There is nothing mystical about the brain. 
It's a computer just like any other...
It is believed that the Lambda calculus is UNIVERSAL.
If the brain has anything that Lambda doesn't, its probably a very
simple enhancment. 

> I should qualify that "with respect to a non-suitable host, i.e. one 
>not possessing those attributes.

THE CHURCH-TURING THESIS (1936) FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
ALL HOSTS ARE "SUITABLE". 
DWEEB.

-- 
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