Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:32:25 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120532.WAA01955@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711120421.VAA22382@usr03.primenet.com> References: <199711120239.TAA01134@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711120421.VAA22382@usr03.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > The entire history of science is the conversion of "chaotic" systems > > > into predictable systems. > > > > Now your being way too general. Science is the attempt to 'model' the > > behavior of complex systems. If you think that 'chaotic' == 'complex' > > then yes, but some systems are inherently chaotic and can not be > > modeled. > > "Perfectly Random" doesn't exist. Prove it. I say it does. :) :) :) > Mostly because not only time and > energy is quantized, but because space is quantized, as well. Actually, space is not as far as we can tell. Space is infinite, and therefore cannot be quantized completely. (Something that is infinite cannot be modeled except by an infinite model.) With the same token energy maybe infinite as well.... > > > The only thing that chaos truly describes > > > is that for which we have yet to derive a predictive model. > > > > And some systems are entirely chaotic, and so therefore have *NO* > > predictive model. > > You're free to subscribe to this belief, but all of the empirical > evidence I've seen contradicts you. 8-). All of the emperical evidence you've seen doesn't take into account things that can't be described emperically. :) > > Especially systems that involve innovations and unique thought > > cannot be modeled, since any system which can create something new > > can easily be proven to not be modeled. > > So it's impossible to build an artificial intelligence? I argue that it's impossible to build 'true' artificial intelligence. And, there are alot of *really* smart people who agree with me. However, it depends on your definition of intelligence, mine being 'conscious', which is hard to quantify, especially in email. > I have a hard time accepting that without evidence. I hypothesize > that the only thing that makes a human being unique is locality > of self. Are 'conscious' and 'locality of self' the same? Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120532.WAA01955>