Mike Tintner wrote:
I was not and am not arguing that anything is impossible. By definition
- for me - if the brain can do it, a computer or some kind of
machine should be able to do it eventually.
But you have to start by recognizing what neither you nor anyone else is
doing - that an AGI must be able to see in wholes, because there is a
simply vast amount of information on that level, that is lost when you
convert to pieces - not to mention whole realms of intelligence and
creativity which work largely on that level.and are not even touched
upon by AI/AGI currently.
And then you surely have to continue by asking : how can a machine do
that? Does anyone have any technological ideas? And that is one thing I
would like to see discussed. Such discussions, regardless of
results, would make people look at things from new perspectives, which
has to be useful.
What *exactly* do you mean by "an AGI must be able to see in wholes"?
My point is that you cannot make criticisms at that level of vagueness.
Now, in fact I am of the opinion that there are some specific
interpretations of that "seeing in wholes" statement that can make
sense, but something interesting happens when you actually take the
trouble to *be* specific about what "seeing in wholes" really means
..... you discover that, after all, some AGI researchers are already
doing exactly that.
So now: what do you, in particular, mean by the statement? It would
help if you could cash it out in terms that allow us to decide whether
or not AGI researchers are addressing the issue or not. No more vague
hand waving ;-)
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
