Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!mimsy!mojo!smeagol
From: smeagol@eng.umd.edu (Kenneth A. Hennacy)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Emergent properties (was: What AI is exactly)
Message-ID: <1990Oct4.045104.24620@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 04:51:04 GMT
References: <8581@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Oct1.002909.21899@eng.umd.edu> <8746@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: university of maryland
Lines: 32

In article <8746@helios.TAMU.EDU> n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu (Kevin Weller) writes:
>
>If something (brain, language, whatever) lacks enough components
>("bits" in computer terminology) to represent...information
>relative to a predetermined "standard"...then it is simply not complex 
enough to hold the information we are looking for in it.  

Your careful mention of "standard" representation of information is crucial
to a discussion on emergent properties I think.  Somehow, a reference or 
"standard" within the brain must have been set up.  I carefully use "set up"
rather than "given".  The concept of an emergent ai seems to require both the
concept of self-generated organization and externally-stimulated organization.

As far as # bits neccessary for representation, this is only required for 
consistancy of interpretation, not complexity.  Minsky was referring to 
looking at the curves of women, so I'll use this example.  The ideas, and 
amount of information contained in this process could be exceedingly complex,
(bizarre even!) yet I could easily be limited in conveying these ideas to
you, but don't blame me, blame the fact that 

1) our brains are finite so we use finite number of symbols
2) due to finite # of symbols, we calculate the meaning of sentences
3) because we calculate with little info, much assumptions are involved.

Also, some thoughts are not sequential, and so using a sequential channel
of communication can introduce misleading notions.  As an example, I 
refer you to the notion that the universe is actually 1 particle.  This 
requires you to abandon the notion of simultaneous occurances.  However,
many of our theories, (relativity), perturbation calculations in 
quantum field theories, etc. require such notions.  

Ken Hennacy