Interesting - after drafting three replies I have come to realize that it is possible to hold two contradictory views and live or even run with it. Looking at their writings, both Ben & Richard know damn well what complexity means and entails for AGI. Intuitively, I side with Richard's stance that, if the current state of 'the new kind of science' cannot even understand simple chaotic systems - the toy-problems of three-variable differential quadratic equations and 2-D Alife, then what hope is there to find a theoretical solution for a really complex system. The way forward is by experimental exploration of part of the solution space. I don't think we'll find general complexity theories any time soon. On the other hand, practically I think that it *is* (or may be) possible to build an AGI system up carefully and systematically from the ground up i.e. inspired by a sound (or at least plausible) theoretical framework or by modelling it on real-world complex systems that seem to work (because that's the way I proceed too), finetuning the system parameters and managing emerging complexity as we go along and move up the complexity scale. (Just like engineers can build pretty much anything without having a GUT.) Both paradagmatic approaches have their merits and are in fact complementary: explore, simulate, genetically evolve etc. from the top down to get a bird's eye view of the problem space versus incrementally build up from the bottom up following a carefully chartered path/ridge inbetween the chasms of the unknown based on a strong conceptual theoretical founding. It is done all the time in other sciences - even maths! Interestingly, I started out wanting to use a simulation tool to check the behaviour (read: fine-tune the parameters) of my architectural designs but then realised that the simulation of a complex system is actually a complex system itself and it'd be easier and more efficient to prototype than to simulate. But that's just because of the nature of my architecture. Assuming Ben's theories hold, he is adopting the right approach. Given Richard's assumption or intuitions, he is following the right path too. I doubt that they will converge on a common solution but the space of conceivably possible AGI architectures is IMHO extremely large. In fact, my architectural approach is a bit of a poor cousin/hybrid: having neither Richard's engineering skills nor Ben's mathematical understanding I am hoping to do a scruffy alternative path :) --
Research Associate: CITANDA Post-Graduate Section Head Department of Information Systems Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 >>> On 2007/12/07 at 03:06, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Conclusion: there is a danger that the complexity that even Ben agrees >> must be present in AGI systems will have a significant impact on our >> efforts to build them. But the only response to this danger at the >> moment is the bare statement made by people like Ben that "I do not >> think that the danger is significant". No reason given, no explicit >> attack on any component of the argument I have given, only a statement >> of intuition, even though I have argued that intuition cannot in >> principle be a trustworthy guide here. > But Richard, your argument ALSO depends on intuitions ... > I agree that AGI systems contain a lot of complexity in the dynamical- > systems-theory sense. > And I agree that tuning all the parameters of an AGI system externally > is likely to be intractable, due to this complexity. > However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. ----- 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=73455082-621f89
