Topic Proposal Issues

My topic "Artificial intelligence, the decision way"http://EvC Forum: Artificial intelligence, the decision way -->EvC Forum: Artificial intelligence, the decision waywas rejected with the argument that it is:Adminjar wrote:
"Same old attempt to rename chance as decision.Forget it."I've no idea really why this topic is rejected.In short my reasoning is as follows:
- decision is an essential part to intelligence
- by decisions things go one way or another
- the randomness function in the computer is the only part of the computer which can go one way or another (the rest behaving according to rules of calculation)
- therefore to build an artificial intelligence on a computer, we need to use the random function as the thing by which the computer choosesNow please tell me what wordusage for discussing this subject is allowed, that would still be understandable. Or to be more precise, what is the point at which the randomfuction chooses between 0 or 1 allowed to be called? Not "decision" apparently, but then what should it be called?To use the word "chance" in stead of "decision" is no good obviously, because the word "chance" is already in use with another meaning (the chance of 0 is 50 percent, the chance of 1 is 50 percent). So then I would have to talk like: "the chance of 0 is chanced", which is gibberish IMO. I would in stead prefer to talk about chances being decided on, "0 is decided" / "1 is decided", which is not gibberish IMO.The topic of intelligence is obviously relevant to Creationism (ie intelligent design theory).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

evolutionist artificial intelligence:
---------------
procedure evolutionistmethodological naturalism=cause and effectdo while creationist (talking)=TRUE........do sing(smurfsong)
........methodological_naturalism.confidence =
........methodological_naturalism.confidence +
........skepticism(methodological_naturalism)enddo
returnfunction skepticism
parameter issueif issue=cause and effect
.......confidence=1
else
.......confidence=-1
endifreturn confidence----------
Or in other words, while the creationist is talking, the evolutionist sings a lala song in their mind, and endlessly runs around the circle of increasing confidence in cause and effect, forgetting decision altogether.Neither you, Jar, or Phat, as admins have given any really valid reasoning in denying the post.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-23-2005 09:07 PMThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 04-24-2005 07:39 AM

Well whatever?!?!?!Admins, give some pointer to how discuss events going one way or another, decision and the like, in the context of artificial intelligence.I don't want to start some thread endlessly philosophizing if things really can go one way or another or not, of which threads there are many. I want to just assume that things can turn out one war or another, and make a workingmodel of choosing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That's admin no 4 (after Phat, Jar, Percy) giving another apparently useless comment.I'm telling you there is basically no more straightforward way to focus on decisions in the context of artificial intelligence than I have done.It is conspicuous that none of you give even a tiny hint of how this subject can be discussed. I think the problem is that the Admins lack acceptance of the subject of decision, as a matter of things turning out one way or another.My defining is similar to the defining of other Intelligent Design Creationists (as referenced by Wounded King in some other thread). It is one of the main things in Intelligent Design theory, the decision is the point of creation. To cut out discussion of the subject of decision, is comparitively similar to if you would cut out discussion of natural selection on the evolutionist side. It is ridiculous.How can you not get this???I want to make a creative artifical intelligence, so OBVIOUSLY I would then focus the program on choosing. And the only part of the computer that possibly chooses (between 0 and 1), is the random function.Again you must all be seriously deluded by science / methodological naturalism / evolutionism, not to comprehend or accept the merit of such a simple, straightforward and reasonable proposition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't feel like engaging in yet another philophical discussion about decision. I find Holmes' definition of free will for instance, incomprehensible (mulitple layers of inputs and outputs, and whatnot. just a lot of sophisticated looking catchwords put in a row without any explanation). That was the only alternative definition to decision presented so far, if I remember correctly.That nobody here is convinced of the utility of the concept of 'a point where things turn out one way or another', or that they think this is not real..... is their problem.I've discussed the philosophy about it long enough, I'm now just using a working definition, to develop something practical. A computerprogram which exists / runs by volition.Of course there are no competing threads of people who have a different understanding of decision and artificial intelligence as I do, because I read on several places on the web that the search for artificial intelligence has failed (as a majority judgement of the scientists involved).I superficially read some articles about artifical intelligence before, which talked about randomness being a focal point of the research into it. So I thought that AI researchers were already thinking along similar lines as I was. But recently I learned that the way the researchers used the randomness function, was only in a simplistic evolutionist/selectionist 'trial and error' sense.So maybe what I offer now is a novel approach to artificial intelligence. It should have some interest certainly.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuAdminBen: Taking this discussion out of this thread and to the PNT in questionThis message has been edited by AdminBen, 05/02/2005 12:08 AM

Quantum computer solves problem, without running
Quantum computer solves problem, without runn | EurekAlert!That is basically an implementation of the bomb testing experiment. So this is all real, fully experimentally validated, but I think you're right that the drawing is in error.Anyway the point is that the paths are equivalent, and that no decision takes place in the paths, except if the bomb is good, or the card is equal. Reflecting is not the point.It is alright to construct some "if then" logic in your mind at the point where the card is drawn. The logic just must all be automated, predetermined.

You dont know, the implementation of the experiment is 2006, you dont know.The many world interpretation mentioned in the article is farfetched, simple common knowledge choosing interpretation is reasonable.