X-Message-Number: 8599
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Digital Shakespeare
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 "John P. Pietrzak" <>Wrote:
>No, I'm not saying complexity is AIC, once again let me repeat that
>I'm not saying anything about the AIC at all! I'm talking about
>process, not content. I don't care if the process results with zero,
>one, or an infinite number of characters; if it only takes a handful
>of steps to perform the algorithm, and those steps are repeated, I
>claim that the repetition does not add to the complexity of those
>handful of steps, only the time it takes to finish the process.
If you were attempting to show how your ideas of complexity differs from AIC
I fear you have failed, at least I'll be damned if I can see any difference,
just like you AIC is not concerned with the length of the results or how long
it takes to calculate them, it's only interested in the length of the
algorithm.
I would also say that if the "complexity" of a problem has absolutely nothing
to do with actually obtaining an answer to that problem then the word
"complexity" should be retired because it has no use.
>it must be far too complex for you to understand.
How can that be? According to you the complexity of a puzzle has nothing to
do with anybody's ability to actually find a solution to it.
I think it's important to remember how this argument started, you said the
basic unit of a computer, a switch, is very simple and I agreed, you then
state that because of this everything about a computer and it's programs must
be simple. I said and continue to say that is a completely nutty idea.
>> Me:
>>And the moral is that you need to understand something before you
>>can give it a meaningful definition, otherwise you run into
>>injustice.
>Exactly! So STOP using the Turing Test!
It's not a definition it's a test, perhaps that's why it's called
The Turing Test and not The Turing Definition.
>there are aspects of meatly intelligence that haven't been seen in
>silicon yet.
Obviously.
>>I gave concrete examples, talking philosophy, writing novels,
>>finding a theory as great as Einstein's.
>Thank you for your concrete examples. We all enjoy looking at your
>concrete examples.
You are entirely welcome, I like to spread a little joy in the world.
>I don't know why you chose them.
You don't understand why I group those thing together and give them the label
"Intelligence"? I think you do, I see no other reason you would say in the
same post " I look at the world, just as John K Clark does, and find that
there are certain things I associate with intelligence; novels, poems,
theories, symphonies, rockets".
>In fact, _you_ don't know why you chose them; if you did, you'd have
>some sort of definition of intelligence.
Utter and complete nonsense. Most people on this planet have never even seen
a dictionary and can't give a good definition of anything, yet their behavior
is far from random and some do things I find admirable, that is, if I'd done
something similar I would be proud of myself. To say that all knowledge must
be in the form of definitions is crazy. You admit you have no definition of
intelligence, yet I know you use the word in the real world when you're not
talking philosophy on Cryonet, and what you do there is far more important.
>they were created by some other agent, and because of them I'm
>(intuitively) labelling that agent as having intelligence. Why?
>Again, I turn to that portion of my mind which I call "meaning", but
>this time I project myself in the role of the agent who made the
>construction. Would I have had to use that section of my mind to
>create the construction, or could I have done it without it? If I
>could have done it without that part of me, then I've been tricked,
>the construction seems to be meaningful but the constructor probably
>didn't build it for that purpose. Otherwise, the constructor _did_
>use something akin to the "meaning" portion of my mind, and so I
>call him/her/it intelligent.
I've tried very hard but I can find nothing to disagree with in the above and
in fact I think it's a very wise procedure, there is a technical term for it,
it's called "The Turing Test".
In #8592 Andre Robatino <> On Sat, 13 Sep 97 Wrote:
> _Any_ state directly corresponds to a specific set of outcomes for
>some complete set of measurements.
I don't dispute that a complete set of measurements corresponds to a unique
quantum wave function, but we can never have a complete set of measurements
for reasons we both know.
>The statement that the state is |psi> has the observable consequence
>that it guarantees that when performing any of the corresponding
>measurements, one will get the corresponding value.
There are very few measurements that quantum mechanics can guarantee, and I
agree with you that, an exact probability of one event, rases very serious
logical and philosophical problems.
>if one starts from state |psi>, one is guaranteed to get value m_i
>for any measurement M_i in a particular complete set of measurements
>{M_i}
You have it backward, in the real world you never start with the quantum wave
function but with a measurement, and any set of measurements you make does
not correspond to a UNIQUE quantum wave function.
>if one starts from state |psi>, then the probability of finding the
>particle in volume dV near the point x is |psi(x)|^2 dV
OK, You perform a measurement and find the particle in the volume (or maybe
you don't, after all you only have a probability). Yes, you can find a
quantum wave function that would satisfy the equations mathematically,
you can find lots and lots of them. My point is you would have no reason
to pick one over another.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBNB4Gr303wfSpid95AQF4LwTvSeAYGva2O6LgO5z1JkNwXRHUFePlz3HV
+4Y3lJlfyBoxP/WyhsE0KT9nLaUD6K7FOvRY0GiYaUyiQXWPD2I6H7TygwvPCXV8
QEnA3ysksJI0UhfvJ6/8oigT9rgPTqqkR1YgDCwhfshU9jb/lc5xjMCSSGEyHuaE
3xHKEmm0MFUlVllPMFZjO3JHL0Sz6VM9YdwDLWnK/AA/mSL12yg=YTrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8599