X-Message-Number: 8589
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Digital Shakespeare

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 "John P. Pietrzak" <> Wrote:

        >What more do you want!!!!

        >> Me:
        >>I want the number.

        >You're not going to get it.

I know.
        
        >you're saying that no matter how few simple things it takes to        

        >describe an algorithm, every iteration of the algorithm increases
                >it's complexity.  
              

I'm saying it certainly increases something, I'm saying that the AIC is 
measuring something too but not the only thing of importance and it's of 
limited usefulness anyway because we can never find what it is, and I'm also  
saying a that a consensus on the definition of complexity has not been 
reached and the idea remains hazy at best. You're saying complexity is AIC 
and that's all there is to it. You're wrong.
              

        >In other words, much of our common knowledge is arrived at by         

        >evolution. Evolution's effect on us is via our genes, not examples
                >shown to us. Therefore, our common knowledge comes not from a 
        >trained neural net, but rather some other structure. Thank you.  
        >That's what I was trying to get at.
              

You are very welcome.
              


        >Which means, you shouldn't assume that your concepts of intelligence
        
        >and complexity are based solely upon examples which trained your
                >neural net.
              

I didn't assume anything of the sort, what I said what that neither you or I 
or anybody else has a definition of intelligence that's worth a damn, so if 
we want to explain the concept to somebody else or if we're trying to  
determine if someone or something has intelligence, we can only do it by
example, The Turing test.
              

        >my interest in intelligence is to find a good, universally         
        >applicable definition.


Good luck. You'll need it.


        >Novels, poems, and theories are symptoms of intelligence, not causes.
          
Obviously.
          
        >>Me:        
        >>Not too long ago many said much the same thing about black people.
          
        >And this is a VERY good point.  

I thought so.



        >The southern United States promulgated a particular definition of
                >intelligence for political and social reasons, not scientific ones.


And the moral is that you need to understand something before you can give it 
a meaningful definition, otherwise you run into injustice.
               

        >I'm not interested in the glorification of a purely arbitrary        
        >category.


Abstract? I gave concrete examples, talking philosophy, writing novels, 
finding a theory as great as Einstein's. You have not given me a hint about 
what you think intelligence is, except that whatever it is only meat can do 
it.            


        >Philosophy _is_ a game, one where you try to play the role of the
                >entire universe.


And everyday life is part of the universe, and when I say something is 
intelligent there I mean exactly the same thing as I do when I talk 
philosophy on Cryonet.
               
In #8580   Andre Robatino <> On Thu, 11 Sep  97 Wrote:
               

        >I'm not sure but I think you believe that the only way to express a
                >quantum  state of a particle is as a function of position.  


Of course not. Express it as position, momentum, energy, spin magnitude,  
spin direction, anything you want, you still can't find the quantum wave  
function itself.
               


        >One can just as easily use momentum eigenfunctions, and  write the
                >quantum state as a momentum wavefunction
               

A particle is completely described by it's quantum function, but we can't 
know everything about a particle so we can't know the function, the more you 
know about the momentum the less you know about position, the more you know 
about energy the less you know about the time it existed, the more you know 
about any attribute the less you know about another.

Can you think of any measurable quality that's directly correlated with a 
unique quantum wave function? I can't. It contains no energy and isn't even a 
probability, it's the square root of a probability, a calculating device.


                                             John K Clark    

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBNBoSVn03wfSpid95AQFPjQTvcJR5xZ5bCm6NMGjqqP/ZuUYEMuztjPUB
6NTFwv4p75tcNlTZvvMjH0X4td/8qjk4QNZSu/uEb2Aa7XFOfDYN4LsoYOeP7KLT
Axd/U9WQnuINtV9UHDpctEdTIiIUx+cL890HREPOx6E5wKF36RIA1bqPgaQng8MA
FhD0OjpZayWb+zw3DzwLcevlm/fIrx2TVjqZr2JICgjbRK1H/rI=a/QM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8589