Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [aima-talk] Question regarding intelligence and feelings

Expand Messages
  • Michael Schuerig
    ... It all depends on what you mean by feelings . If you extend the question somewhat to Can purely algorithmic processes in a system result in the system
    Message 1 of 7 , May 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Friday 23 May 2003 11:31, bhargav prajapati wrote:

      > What the intelligence can create Fellings?

      It all depends on what you mean by "feelings".

      If you extend the question somewhat to "Can purely algorithmic processes
      in a system result in the system having feelings", then you get one of
      the hot topics of recent philosophy of mind. Important players are Ned
      Block, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Sidney Shoemaker and,
      of course, Daniel Dennett.

      Basically, the debate boils down to an unmitigated opposition between
      those who believe in (philosophical) Zombies and those who don't.
      Zombies in this sense are creatures who behave absolutely
      indistinguishable from ordinary people -- but who don't feel anything,
      they don't have "qualia" (philo jargon for raw feelings).

      So, if you would insist that feelings are something above and beyond
      behavior, utterances, predispositions -- that is, things that can be
      discernd from a scientific, third-person perspective. And if you
      instead claimed that you have privileged, exclusive, first-person
      access to "what it's like". Well, then there's no way from algorithmic
      process to feelings.

      People who favor this big-R Realist view of qualia conceive of the
      feelings themselves as something in need of explanation. In my opinion,
      this is a futile endeavor. Instead, I side with those (Dennett), who
      more or less see our *verbal reports of feelings* as the thing to
      explain. Feelings in this sense are (small-r) real, too, as they
      obviously have an explanatory role in our mental economy.

      HTH,
      Michael

      --
      Michael Schuerig Not only does lightning not strike
      mailto:schuerig@... twice, it usually doesn't strike once.
      http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Salman Rushdie, "Fury"
    • Jarbas Joaci
      I have a doubt related to Breadth-first Search . In this strategy you first verify if a node is the goal and, if it is not, you create its children and then
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I have a doubt related to "Breadth-first Search". In this strategy you first verify if a node is the goal and, if it is not, you create its children and then verify the next node at the same level. In the worst case, you create the children of all the nodes at a level, except for the last one, which is the goal, that is,           b^(d+1)-b nodes.  The question is: wouldn't it be better to create the children after all the nodes of a determined level have been verified? What is the advantage of creating nodes that may not be verified? I think it would be useful a brief explanation about this in the book Artificial Intelligence.
         
        Jarbas Joaci de Mesquita Junior


      • HB
        Hi, I am not sure which edition of the book you have, but in the third edition BFS is modified to test for goal when the node is generated not when expanded.
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,
          I am not sure which edition of the book you have, but in the third edition BFS is modified to test for goal when the node is generated not when expanded. With this, the complexity is O(b^d) instead of O(b^(d+1)). This also implies that no level is generated if the goal is contained in the previous level.

          Regards,

          H.B.

          From: Jarbas Joaci <jarbas_joaci@...>
          To: "aima-talk@yahoogroups.com" <aima-talk@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 8:01 PM
          Subject: [aima-talk] Question

           
          I have a doubt related to "Breadth-first Search". In this strategy you first verify if a node is the goal and, if it is not, you create its children and then verify the next node at the same level. In the worst case, you create the children of all the nodes at a level, except for the last one, which is the goal, that is,           b^(d+1)-b nodes.  The question is: wouldn't it be better to create the children after all the nodes of a determined level have been verified? What is the advantage of creating nodes that may not be verified? I think it would be useful a brief explanation about this in the book Artificial Intelligence.
           
          Jarbas Joaci de Mesquita Junior




        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.