X-Message-Number: 8577
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Digital Shakespeare


On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 "John P. Pietrzak" <> Wrote:

        >I've given you a truly trivial algorithm, something practically any
                >child could execute.  What more do you want!!!!

I want the number. 

        >Which of these operations did you find too complex: Addition?       

        >Subtraction?  Division?  Variable assignment? There isn't anything
                >else to the algorithm.

So you're saying no matter how many simple things you put together the whole 
never gets one bit more complex and performing a trillion easy tasks is just 
as easy as doing one. Hmm, that doesn't seem quite right now does it.

        >You're just saying that time equals complexity here.

Give that man a cigar.

        >How can all people, requiring examples to train their neural nets,
                >have a base of information in common?  

You and I live in the same world with the same laws of logic and physics,  
these laws put pressure on evolution and rendered most potential mechanisms 
nonviable, the remaining tiny minority, life, thus have certain things in  
common. And we have more,  we're even of the same species so our minds work  
in more or less the same way.

        >you seem to think that I've already built up a category around
                >tears and frowns

Correct, you has the same physiology I do so you also know that tears and 
frowns are not totally unrelated.

        >How can a purely connectionist person find the opposite of a concept,
                >when reasoning requires rules, axioms, definitions?

If a purely connectionist person can't tell the difference between A and 
not A then I'm not a purely connectionist person. 

        >Shakespeare consistently produced text which was a very constrained
                >subset of the total possible random sequences

True, and so is "ekomclhsorudnndavnjgya9qtbj" which expresses a very profound  
and beautiful thought in the language of the people of the Virgo Cluster.

        >the text followed the rules of the English language

An arbitrary set of rules.

       >No, sir, I DON'T associate intelligence with mathematics or physics.  

So I could talk philosophy with you, write good novels and bad love poems,  
make up jokes you thought were funny, solve calculus problems and even come  
up with a theory as great as Einstein's and you still would not think I was  
intelligent unless I could prove to you I was made of meat and not silicon. 
Not too long ago many said much the same thing about black  people.

If these things are not intelligence they are certainly something, let's call 
it Attribute X. Personally I don't give a hoot in hell about intelligence, 
I'm only interested an Attribute X.

        >Steven Hawking has written several best-selling books.  

He's done more than that, he's materially increased the knowledge human beings 
have about the universe, and he's done it all by taping out a digital signal 
with one finger on one hand.

        >Steven Hawking has made an appearance on Star Trek: The Next         

Could this perhaps be your objective definition of intelligence? Well, it is 
objective at least, I'll give you that.

        >Ah, Grasshopper, you begin to see the truth.  Only a slight         
        >modification of your statement above, and you will see all.         

        >"In other words, one set of ideas is useful in everyday life and
                >another set is useful when arguing philosophy."

If your philosophy has nothing to do with everyday life or how the world 
works, if your philosophy is only good for arguing about your philosophy then 
it would be no different than the rules of poker which are only good for 
playing poker. I think my philosophy is more than a game.

        >you were criticizing Eliza's passing the Turing Test based upon
        the _tester_, not the test.  If it doesn't matter who the tester is,
                >why do you make such a fuss  about Eliza?

The Turing Test does not produce facts it produces opinions, you wish we had 
something better and I do too but we don't, we can only work with what we 
have. If the tester is an idiot then you have the opinion of an idiot, if the 
tester is a genius then you have the opinion of a genius, but far more 
important than either of these is the opinion of John K Clark.

        >modern programs going after the TT have advanced quite a bit beyond
                >Eliza in recognizing sentential and paragraph structure 

Maybe yes maybe no. Eliza is quite a bit beyond paragraph structures in  
recognizing sentential modern programs but only going after the advanced TT.
In #8570 Andre Robatino <> On Tue, 9 Sep 97 Wrote:
        >If two wave functions psi1(x,t) and psi2(x,t) satisfy  

        >psi2(x,0) = c(x)*psi1(x,0), where c(x) is a complex-valued function
        >such that |c(x)| = 1 everywhere, the two have different probabilities
        >for measurements of various quantities other than position at time 0,
                >unless c(x) is a constant function.  Also, even if one is only      
        >interested in measuring position, letting c be a function of 

        >position will cause psi1 and psi2 to have different time evolution,
        >so for t > 0, psi1(x,t) and psi2(x,t) will no longer have the same
                >intensity at each point.

Yes, changing the wave function can sometimes (but not always) change it's 
square, the intensity, but even if you knew the intensity, by measuring the 
probability with arbitrary accuracy, you still wouldn't know the wave 
function itself because deriving a square root does not give you a unique 
answer, such is the nature of complex numbers. The intensity you can know
because you can measure it, and you can figure out some things the wave 
function could not be, but if you try to pin down what it actually is you 
find it as illusive as a rumor.              

        >You can only measure the intensity at a given point by creating the
                >same wave function a large number of times and measuring the        

        >likelihood of finding the particle at that point.  You can do the
                >same with any other physical quantity, 

you're free to measure position, you're free to measure momentum, you're not 
free to measure both.                                

                                              John K Clark    

Version: 2.6.i


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8577