🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <d9qn02B687oD01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
> [...]  So let's suppose Moravec's machine is a hypothesis-
>tester, and the signals it gets from the information source are like
>scientific observations, perhaps increasingly precise measurements of
>fundamental constants.  Then, supposing that the system can make use of
>the input, it's information content can increase.  But there are very
>serious problems with extending this process to full-scale science.
>If a constant coding scheme is used to represent the input measurements,
>the system would be unable to participate in major scientific conceptual
>changes, such as relativity or QM caused.

If you are suggesting that limitations on the senses (input devices) would
keep an intellegence from making paradigm shifts, then you must be willing
to suggest that the same limitation exists for us.  In this era, we have
many tools for making measurements, and presenting the information in a
form our senses can digest; much of this information in inaccessable to
out senses.  An intellegent machine would have to have access to the same
instraments if you expect it to perform in the type of scientific domains
in your example.

Gerry Gleason