On Dec 5, 2007 6:23 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ben: To publish your ideas
> > in academic journals, you need to ground them in the existing research
> > literature,
> > not in your own personal introspective observations.
>
> Big mistake. Think what would have happened if Freud had omitted the 40-odd
> examples of slips in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (if I've got the
> right book!)
Obviously, Freud's reliance on introspection and qualitative experience had
plusses and minuses. He generated a lot of nonsense as well as some
brilliant ideas.
But anyway, I was talking about style of exposition, not methodology of
doing work. If Freud were a professor today, he would write in a different
style in order to get journal publications; though he might still write some
books in a more expository style as well.
I was pointing out that, due to the style of exposition required in contemporary
academic culture, one can easily get a false impression that no one in academia
is doing original thinking -- but the truth is that, even if you DO
original thinking,
you are required in writing your ideas up for publication to give them
the appearance
of minimal originality via grounding them exorbitantly in the prior
literature (even if in fact
their conception had nothing, or very little, to do with the prior
literature). I'm not
saying I like this -- I'm just describing the reality. Also, in the
psych literature, grounding
an idea in your own personal observations is not acceptable and is not
going to get
you published -- unless of course you're a clinical psychologist,
which I am not.
The scientific heavyweights are the people who are heavily
> grounded. The big difference between Darwin and Wallace is all those
> examples/research, and not the creative idea.
That is an unwarranted overgeneralization.
Anyway YOU were the one who was harping on the lack of creativity in AGI.
Now you've changed your tune and are harping on the lack of {creativity coupled
with a lot of empirical research}
Ever consider that this research is going on RIGHT NOW? I don't know why you
think it should be instantaneous. A number of us are doing concrete
research work
aimed at investigating our creative ideas about AGI. Research is
hard. It takes
time. Darwin's research took time. The Manhattan Project took time. etc.
> And what I didn't explain in my simple, but I believe important, two-stage
> theory of creative development is that there's an immense psychological
> resistance to moving onto the second stage. You have enough psychoanalytical
> understanding, I think, to realise that the unusual length of your reply to
> me may possibly be a reflection of that resistance and an inner conflict.
What is bizarre to me, in this psychoanalysis of Ben Goertzel that you present,
is that you overlook
the fact that I am spending most of my time on concrete software projects, not
on abstract psychological/philosophical theory....
Including the Novamente Cognition Engine
project which is aimed precisely at taking some of my creative ideas about AGI
and realizing them in useful software....
As it happens, my own taste IS more for theory, math and creative arts than
software development -- but, I decided some time ago that the most IMPORTANT
thing I could do would be to focus a lot of attention on
implementation and detailed
design rather than "just" generating more and more funky ideas. It is
always tempting to me to
consider my role as being purely that of a thinker, and leave all
practical issues to others
who like that sort of thing better -- but I consider the creation of
AGI *so* important
that I've been willing to devote the bulk of my time to activities
that run against my
personal taste and inclination, for some years now.... And
fortunately I have found
some great software engineers as collaborators.
> P.S. Just recalling a further difference between the original and the
> creative thinker - the creative one has greater *complexes* of ideas - it
> usually doesn't take just one idea to produce major creative work, as people
> often think, but a whole interdependent network of them. That, too, is v.
> hard.
Mike, you can make a lot of valid criticisms against me, but I don't
think you can
claim I have not originated an "interdependent network of creative ideas."
I certainly have done so. You may not like or believe my various ideas, but
for sure they form an interdependent network. Read "The Hidden Pattern"
for evidence.
-- Ben Goertzel
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73146505-9fe3b7
