Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 1 Issue 096
AIList Digest Monday, 14 Nov 1983 Volume 1 : Issue 96
Today's Topics:
Theory - Parallel Systems,
Looping Problem in Literature,
Intelligence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 83 23:03:04-PST (Tue)
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Infinite loops and Turing machines.. - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3712
/***** uokvax:net.ai / umcp-cs!speaker / 9:41 pm Nov 1, 1983 */
Aha! I knew someone would come up with this one!
Consider that when we talk of simultaneous events... we speak of
simultaneous events that occur within one Turing machine state
and outside of the Turing machine itself. Can a one-tape
Turing machine read the input of 7 discrete sources at once?
A 7 tape machine with 7 heads could!
/* ---------- */
But I can do it with a one-tape, one-head turing machine. Let's assume
that each of your 7 discrete sources can always be represeted in n bits.
Thus, the total state of all seven sources can be represented in 7*n bits.
My one-tape turing machine has 2 ** (7*n) symbols, so it can handle your
7 sources, each possible state of all 7 being one symbol of input.
One of the things I did in an undergraduate theory course was show that
an n-symbol turing machine is no more powerful than a two-symbol turing
machine for any finite (countable?) n. You just loose speed.
<mike
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 11 November 1983, 14:54-EST
From: Carl Hewitt <HEWITT at MIT-AI>
Subject: parallel vs. sequential
An excellent treatise on how some parallel machines are more powerful
than all sequential machines can be found in Will Clinger's doctoral
dissertation "Foundations of Actor Semantics" which can be obtained by
sending $7 to
Publications Office
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
requesting Technical Report 633 dated May 1981.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 11 Nov 83 17:12:08-PST
From: Wilkins <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: parallelism and turing machines
Regarding the "argument" that parallel algorithms cannot be run serially
because a Turing machine cannot react to things that happen faster than
the time it needs to change states:
clearly, you need to go back to whoever sold you the Turing machine
for this purpose and get a turbocharger for it.
Seriously, I second the motion to move towards more useful discussions.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 83 19:28:21-PST (Wed)
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: the halting problem in history
Article-I.D.: uvacs.1048
If there were any 'subroutines' in the brain that could not
halt... I'm sure they would have been found and bred out of
the species long ago. I have yet to see anyone die from
an infinite loop. (umcp-cs.3451)
There is such. It is caused by seeing an object called the Zahir. One was
a Persian astrolabe, which was cast into the sea lest men forget the world.
Another was a certain tiger. Around 1900 it was a coin in Buenos Aires.
Details in "The Zahir", J.L.Borges.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 83 16:38:29-PST (Tue)
From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!asa @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Inscrutable Intelligence
Article-I.D.: rayssd.233
The problem with a psychological definition of intelligence is in finding
some way to make it different from what animals do, and cover all of the
complex things that huumans can do. It used to be measured by written
test. This was grossly unfair, so visual tests were added. These tend to
be grossly unfair because of cultural bias. Dolphins can do very
"intelligent" things, based on types of "intelligent behavior". The best
definition might be based on the rate at which learning occurs, as some
have suggested, but that is also an oversimplification. The ability to
deduce cause and effect, and to predict effects is obviously also
important. My own feeling is that it has something to do with the ability
to build a model of yourself and modify yourself accordingly. It may
be that "I conceive" (not "I think"), or "I conceive and act", or "I
conceive of conceiving" may be as close as we can get.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 83 23:02:53-PST (Tue)
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!rigney @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3711
Perhaps something on the order of "Intelligence enhances survivability
through modification of the environment" is in order. By modification
something other than the mere changes brought about by living is indicated
(i.e. Rise in CO2 levels, etc. doesn't count).
Thus, if Turtles were intelligent, they would kill the baby rabbits, but
they would also attempt to modify the highway to present less of a hazard.
Problems with this viewpoint:
1) It may be confusing Technology with Intelligence. Still, tool
making ability has always been a good sign.
2) Making the distinction between Intelligent modifications and
the effect of just being there. Since "conscious modification"
lands us in a bigger pit of worms than we're in now, perhaps a
distinction should be drawn between reactive behavior (reacting
and/or adapting to changes) and active behavior (initiating
changes). Initiative is therefore a factor.
3) Monkeys make tools(Antsticks), Dolphins don't. Is this an
indication of intelligence, or just a side-effect of Monkeys
having hands and Dolphins not? In other words, does Intelligence
go away if the organism doesn't have the means of modifying
its environment? Perhaps "potential" ability qualifies. Or
we shouldn't consider specific instances (Is a man trapped in
a desert still intelligent, even if he has no way to modify
his environment.)
Does this mean that if you had a computer with AI, and
stripped its peripherals, it would lose intelligence? Are
human autistics intelligent? Or are we only considering
species, and not representatives of species?
In the hopes that this has added fuel to the discussion,
Carl
..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
..!duke!uok!uokvax!rigney
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 83 20:51:15-PST (Tue)
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RE:intelligence and adaptability - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3746
Actually, SHRDLU had neither hand nor eye -- only simulations of them.
That's a far cry from the real thing.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 83 16:20:10-PST (Wed)
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: inscrutable intelligence
Article-I.D.: uvacs.1047
Regarding inscrutability of intelligence [sri-arpa.13363]:
Actually, it's typical that a discipline can't define its basic object of
study. Ever heard a satisfactory definition of mathematics (it's not just
the consequences of set theory) or philosophy.? What is physics?
Disciplines are distinguished from each other for historical and
methodological reasons. When they can define their subject precisely it is
because they have been superseded by the discipline that defines their
terms.
It's usually not important (or possible) to define e.g. intelligence
precisely. We know it in humans. This is where the IQ tests run into
trouble. AI seems to be about behavior in computers that would be called
intelligent in humans. Whether the machines are or are not intelligent
(or, for that matter, conscious) is of little interest and no import. In
this I guess I agree with Rorty [sri-arpa.13322]. Rorty is willing to
grant consciousness to thermostats if it's of any help.
(Best definition of formal mathematics I know: "The science where you don't
know what you're talking about or whether what you're saying is true".)
A. Colvin
mac@virginia
------------------------------
Date: 12 Nov 83 0:37:48-PST (Sat)
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1420
The other problem with the "turtles should be killing baby
rabbits" definition of intelligence is that it seems to imply that
killing (or at least surviving) is an indication of intelligence.
i would rather not believe this, unless there is compelling evidence
that the 2 are related. So far I have not seen the evidence.
Laura Creighton
utcsstat!laura
------------------------------
Date: 20 Nov 83 0:24:46-EST (Sun)
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!karl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Slow Intelligence - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3789
" .... I'm not at all sure that people's working definition
of intelligence has anything at all to do with either time
or survival. "
Glenn Reid
I'm not sure that people's working definition of intelligence has
anything at all to do with ANYTHING AT ALL. The quoted statement
implies that peoples' working definition of intelligence is different
- it is subjective to each individual. I would like to claim
that each individual's working definition of intelligence is sub-
ject to change also.
What we are working with here is conceptual.. not a tangible ob-
ject which we can spot at an instance. If the object is concep-
tual, and therefore subjective, then it seems that we can (and
probably will) change it's definition as our collective experi-
ences teach us differently.
Karl T. Braun
...ctvax!trsvax!karl
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
