Jim Bromer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Charles Hixson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Galileo, Bruno of Nolan, etc.
OTOH, Paracelsus was quite personable. So was, reputedly, Pythagoras. (No
good evidence on Pythagoras, though. Only stories from supporters.) (Also,
consider that the Pythagoreans, possibly including Pythagoras, had a guy put
to death for discovering that sqrt(2) was irrational. [As with most things
from this date, this is more legend than fact, but is quite probable.])
As a generality, with many exceptions, strongly opinionated persons are not
easy to get along with unless you agree with their opinions. It appears to
be irrelevant whether their opinions are right, wrong, or undecidable.
I just want to comment that my original post was not about
agreeableness. It was about the necessity of being capable of
criticizing your own theories (and criticisms). I just do not believe
that Newton, Galileo, Pythagoras and the rest of them were incapable
of examining their own theories from critical vantage points even
though they may have not accepted the criticisms others derived from
different vantage points. As I said, there is no automatic equality
for criticisms. Just because a theory is unproven it does not mean
that all criticisms have to be accepted as equally valid.
But when you see someone, theorist or critic, who almost never
demonstrates any genuine capacity for reexamining his own theories or
criticisms from any critical vantage point what so ever, then it's a
strong negative indicator.
Jim Bromer
The process of formulation of scientific theories has been characterised
as a dynamical system nicely by Nicholas Rescher.
Rescher, N., Process philosophy : a survey of basic issues, University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2000, p. 144.
Rescher, N., Nature and understanding : the metaphysics and method of
science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. ix, 186.
In that approach you can see critical argument operating operating as a
brain process - competing brain electrodynamics that stabilises on the
temporary 'winner', whose position may be toppled at any moment by the
emergence of a more powerful criticism which destabilises the current
equilibrium...and so on. The 'argument' may involve the provision of
empirical evidence ... indeed that is the norm for most sciences.
In order that a discipline be seen to be real science, then, what one
would expect to see such processes happening in a dialog between a
diversity of views competing for ownership of scientific evidence
through support for whatever theoretical framework seems apt. As a
recent entrant here, and seeing the dialog and the issues as they unfold
I would have some difficulty classifying what is going on as
'scientific' in the sense that there is no debate calibrated against any
overt fundamental scientific theoretical framework(s), nor defined
testing protocols.
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary
question. A forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real
AGI as a target, one would expect that forum to a multidisciplianry
approach on many fronts, all competing scientifically for access to real
AGI.
I am not seeing that here. In having a completely different approach to
AGI, I hope I can contribute to the diversity of ideas and bring the
discourse closer to that of a solid scientific discipline, with formal
testing metrics and so forth. I hope that I can attract the attention of
the neuroscience and physics world to this area.
Of course whether I'm an intransigent grumpy theory-zealot of the
Newtonian kind... well... just let the ideas speak for themselves...
:-) The main thing is the diversity of ideas and criticism .. which
seems a little impoverished at the moment. Without the diversity of
approaches actively seen to compete, an AGI forum will end up
marginalised as a club of some kind: "We do (what we assume will be) AGI
by fiddling about with XYZ". This is scientific suicide.
Here's a start:: the latest survey in the key area. Like it or not AGI
is directly in the running for solving the 'hard problem' and machine
consciousness is where the game is at.
Gamez, D. 'Progress in machine consciousness', Consciousness and
Cognition vol. 17, no. 3, 2008. 887-910.
I'll do my best to diversify the discourse... I'd like to see this
community originate real AGI and be seen as real science. To do that
this forum should attract cognitive scientists, psychologists,
physicists, engineers, neuroscientists. Over time, maybe we can get that
sort of diversity happening. I have enthusiasm for such things..
cheers
colin hales
-------------------------------------------
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=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
