From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 09:11:36 MST
On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 04:51 AM, Christian Szegedy wrote:
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
>> Indeed, the mathematical formalization I have in mind will involve some
>> very-hard-to-compute quantities, and hence will be of value only
>> a) conceptually
> I would not neglect the conceptual value. I think you could happily
> write down your thoughts
> if you had the slightest evidence the the different types of self
> modifications you proposed are
> basically different.
Not entirely regardless of Ben's possible mathematical argument, just in
case you aren't noticing, the intuition that it's like this (broken up
into different levels of self modification) comes from reading GEB and
the fundamental limitations found in computers (programs without loops,
programs with loops, and some meta programs that don't really exist that
can solve the halting problem (in programs with loops)). These levels
of incompleteness imply similar intuitions about other computational
systems, like ones that self modify.
Well, anyway, this is how I'm seeing it, but I'm doped up right now,
trying to feel unsick, so sorry if I don't make much sense.
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose email@example.com it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT