Hi Mike, Good summary. I think your point of view is valuable in the sense of helping engineers in AGI to see what they may be missing. And your call for technical AI folks to take up the mantle of more artistic modes of intelligence is also important.
But it's empty, for you've demonstrated no willingness to cross over to engage in technical arguments beyond a certain, quite limited, depth. Admitting your ignorance is one thing, and it's laudable, but it only goes so far. I think if you're serious about getting folks (like Pei Wang) to take you seriously, then you need to also demonstrate your willingness to get your hands dirty and do some programming, or in some other way abolish your ignorance about technical subjects - exactly what you're asking others to do. Otherwise, you have to admit the folly of trying to compel any such folks to move from their hard-earned perspectives, if you're not willing to do that yourself. Terren --- On Sun, 9/7/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [agi] Philosophy of General Intelligence > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 6:26 PM > Jiri: Mike, > > If you think your AGI know-how is superior to the know-how > of those > who already built testable thinking machines then why > don't you try to > build one yourself? > > Jiri, > > I don't think I know much at all about machines or > software & never claim > to. I think I know certain, only certain, things about the > psychological and > philosophical aspects of general intelligence - esp. BTW > about the things > you guys almost never discuss, the kinds of problems that a > general > intelligence must solve. > > You may think that your objections to me are entirely > personal about my > manner. I suggest that there is also a v. deep difference > of philosophy > involved here. > > I believe that GI really is about *general* intelligence - > a GI, and the > only serious example we have is human, is, crucially, and > must be, able to > cross domains - ANY domain. That means the whole of our > culture and society. > It means every kind of representation, not just > mathematical and logical and > linguistic, but everything - visual, aural, solid, models, > embodied etc etc. > There is a vast range. That means also every subject domain > - artistic, > historical, scientific, philosophical, technological, > politics, business > etc. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but there should be > no limit to how > you progress. > > And the subject of general intelligence is tberefore, in no > way, just the > property of a small community of programmers, or > roboticists - it's the > property of all the sciences, incl. neuroscience, > psychology, semiology, > developmental psychology, AND the arts and philosophy etc. > etc. And it can > only be a collaborative effort. Some robotics disciplines, > I believe, do > think somewhat along those lines and align themselves with > certain sciences. > Some AI-ers also align themselves broadly with scientists > and philosophers. > > By definition, too, general intelligence should embrace > every kind of > problem that humans have to deal with - again artistic, > practical, > technological, political, marketing etc. etc. > > The idea that general intelligence really could be anything > else but truly > general is, I suggest, if you really think about it, > absurd. It's like > preaching universal brotherhood, and a global society, and > then practising > severe racism. > > But that's exactly what's happening in current AGI. > You're actually > practising a highly specialised approach to AGI - only > certain kinds of > representation, only certain kinds of problems are > considered - basically > the ones you were taught and are comfortable with - a very, > very narrow > range - (to a great extent in line with the v. narrow > definition of > intelligence involved in the IQ test). > > When I raised other kinds of problems, Pei considered it > not "constructive." > When I recently suggested an in fact brilliant game for > producing creative > metaphors, DZ considered it "childish," because > it was visual and > imaginative, and you guys don't do those things, or > barely. (Far from being > childish, that game produced a rich series of visual/verbal > metaphors, where > AGI has produced nothing). > > If you aren't prepared to use your imagination and > recognize the other half > of the brain, you are, frankly, completely buggered as far > as AGI is > concerned. In over 2000 years, logic and mathematics > haven't produced a > single metaphor or analogy or crossed any domains. > They're not meant to, > that's expressly forbidden. But the arts produce > metaphors and analogies on > a daily basis by the thousands. The grand irony here is > that creativity > really is - from a strictly technical pov - largely what > our culture has > always said it is - imaginative/artistic and not rational.. > (Many rational > thinkers are creative - but by using their imagination). > AGI will in fact > only work if sciences and arts align. > > Here, then is basically why I think you're getting > upset over and over by > me. I'm saying in many different ways, general > intelligence really should be > general, and embrace the whole of culture and intelligence, > not just the > very narrow sections you guys espouse. And yes, I think you > should be > delighted to defer to, and learn from > "outsiders", (if they deserve it), > just as I'm delighted to learn from you. But you're > not - you resent > outsiders like me telling you about "your" > subject. > > I think you should also be prepared to admit your ignorance > - and most of > you, frankly, don't have much of a clue about > imaginative/visual/artistic > intelligence and vast swathes of problemsolving, ( just as > I have don't have > much of a clue re your technology and many kinds of > problemsolving...etc). > But there is v. little willingness to admit ignorance, or > to acknowledge the > value of other disciplines. > > IN the final analysis, I suggest, that's just sheer > cultural prejudice. It > doesn't belong in the new millennium when the defining > paradigm is global > (and general) as opposed to the local (and specialist) > mentality of the old > one - recognizing the value and interdependence of ALL > parts of society and > culture. And it doesn't belong in a true field of > *General* INtelligence. I > think you need to change your central philosophy in a major > way and be > culturally open-minded. (and then just possibly you > won't find me quite so > upsetting.) > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
