🚀 go-pugleaf

In "<3vsaom$mp0$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>", 
jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)  writes :
> In article <3vsaom$mp0$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
> LACROSSE  <100304.3261@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >May be have we forgot the best mechanism to solve a decision problem :
> >emotions !
> >If you prefer strawberry ice cream to lemon ice cream, you don't need to
> >calculate which one you must take.
 
> I think this is a very important and underestimated point.  I suspect that
> there are serious limits to what can be achieved without *values and
> motivations*.  I think that's a lot more important than quantum effects or
> freedom from Goedelian limitations.  And I don't think these are reducible to
> the sorts of simple goal-oriented behavior in extant AI systems.  I suspect a
> much richer model is needed.

	I'm agree with you, a first order logic can't  solve the emotional problem.
I think that we have a wrong perception on emotion. Emotion is not only perception,
it's not computation, it's not magic (with no causes). To have emotions, we need
to react to our environment, but not exactly  like Pavlov's actions, but with 
understanding of it.
	So what is to understand ?
	I think, in this matter, we need to be behaviorist. So Human is a black box
and we understand something when we act in the world in the good way . No more.
Understand need three parts.
	1) To perceive the universe
	2) To "agglomerate" this perception to do something you recognize. We can
name it "concept".
	3) To use this "concept" to act in the real world

> >Are men Universal Turing Machine ?
 
> I predict that, were you to attempt to emulate some particular person that you
> would *like* to emulate, that you would eventually stray from the desirable
> behavior into something more familiar, despite all attempts to confute this
> prediction.  We just aren't that flexible.

	In fact, everybody do this every time. If you by a gift for your wife, you can
predict if it please she or not. If you know somebody, you can say what he "think"
about this or that. You can't calculate this thinking. You feel it.
	You have the same understanding than above. We "predict" the others.

> >If we are Universal Turing Machine, are we ONLY a Turing Machine ?
> >(It's the unresolved problem of soul)
 
> Even a Turing Machine is not *only* a Turing Machine.  There is nothing that
> fits only *one* concept.  Resist reification.

	In fact I ask this question, but I'm not sure it's an important fact. A Turing 
Machine is a very simple machine, Even a computer can do easily things that Turing 
Machines do with difficulty.
	I think that "The Point" is : is a computer a compute machine ?
	In French we use the word "Ordinateur", which mean a machine we make order !
A machine which use symbol to do others symbols. And some of theses are numbers
so an "Ordinateur" can compute, but it is not is mean goal.
 
 JM
 
~######~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
@ - - @|  LACROSSE J.M. 100304.3261@compuserve.com     (PARIS)      |
   {   |  L'important n'est pas de savoir mais de savoir comment... |
 savoir \__________________________________________________________/