You probably could show that a sophisticated mathematical structure would produce a scalable AGI program if is true, using contemporary mathematical models to simulate it. However, if scalability was completely dependent on some as yet undiscovered mathemagical principle, then you couldn't.
For example, I think polynomial time SAT would solve a lot of problems with contemporary AGI. So I believe this could be demonstrated on a simulation. That means, that I could demonstrate effective AGI that works so long as the SAT problems are easily solved. If the program reported that a complicated logical problem could not be solved, the user could provide his insight into the problem at those times to help with the problem. This would not work exactly as hoped, but by working from there, I believe that I would be able to determine better ways to develop such a program so it would work better - if my conjecture about the potential efficacy of polynomial time SAT for AGI was true. Jim Bromer On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com>wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] >> > >> > how would these diverse examples >> > be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of >> > knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for >> the >> > most common examples that the person is familiar with. >> >> This is a big part of it and for me the most exciting. And I don't think >> that this "subsystem" would take up millions of lines of code either. It's >> just that it is a *very* sophisticated and dynamic mathematical structure >> IMO. >> >> John >> > > > Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing > prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure > has to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical. For > instance you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you > are capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something. This > means that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own > programming. While the idea in this example would be associated with a > fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand the > full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first. (It > could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the > details of those effects would not be known until the change had > progressed.) > > I think the more important question is how does a general concept be > interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas. Actually this is > not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated > conceptual interrelations integrated and resolved? > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
