On Mar 24, 2:39 am, "Randolph M. Jones"  wrote:   
   > jonesrobemporia.edu wrote:   
   > > Hofstadter has said (Godel, Escher, Bach... Basic Books,   
   > > 1979) that "below every tangled hierarchy lies an   
   > > inviolate level." But is this true? Over the past few years   
   > > I have been developing my Asa (Autonomous Software   
   > > Agent) AIs. At first Asa was a pair of neural networks   
   > > (Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., vol. 100, pg 85, 1997), later   
   > > I modified it to employ case based reasoners (Trans.   
   > > Kansas Acad. Sci., vol. 107, pg 32, 2004) and most   
   > > recently a hierarchical structure (Trans. Kansas Acad.   
   > > Sci., vol. 109, pg 159, 2006). The programming language   
   > > was also changed along the way and I no longer run Asa   
   > > on the original hardware.   
   >   
   > > Now you may not know this but I am a flesh and blood   
   > > living and breathing human being.  But just suppose that   
   > > I too was an AI, running and modifing Asa. Couldn't two   
   > > intelligent agents run and modify one another?  And   
   > > modify whatever they wanted, backing up if and when   
   > > their modifications caused a systems crash.   
   >   
   > > Now perhaps the laws of physics could be held to be   
   > > the "inviolate level" but I don't think that is what Hofstadter   
   > > had in mind.  And I suppose we shouldn't let the agents'   
   > > value system be too easily self-adjusted (Trans. Kansas   
   > > Acad. Sci., vol. 107, pg 32, 2004) either.  But values   
   > > can change if not too easily and too quickly.   
   >   
   > You say that you and ASA could "run each other".  But the question is   
   > "What is each of you running on?"  Somewhere down there, there has to be   
   > a machine (mechanical, electrical, biological, molecular, whatever...)   
   > on which things are "running".  That is the inviolate level.  For some   
   > kinds of "programs", the laws of physics would be exactly what   
   > Hofstadter means by an inviolate level (in my opinion)...but most   
   > "programmable" machines would be somewhat higher (at least at a   
   > molecular level, for example, like DNA transcription).   
      
   I did change computers.  In principle at least I could have   
   changed from an electrical PC to a mechanical Babbage machine.   
   And from DNA one might change to RNA, etc.  I guess we must   
   all use the same atoms to build up our machines? Or, I   
   suppose, at least antimatter will work if not neutronium.   
   And of course we are not at the bottom of physics yet   
   either.  A Babbage machine follows Newtonian laws but a   
   relativistic machine is possible.  With flight near the   
   speed of light one can effectively speed up calculations.   
   What might string theory bring?  Will our laws of physics   
   always be changing too?  If so there goes your inviolate   
   level. Will anything in science ever remain fixed?   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated ... your article may take a while to appear. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)