Jim, Fair enough. My apologies then. I just often see your posts on SAT or other very formal math problems and got the impression that you thought this was at the core of AGI's problems and that pursuing a fast solution to NP-complete problems is the best way to solve it. At least, that was my impression. So, my thought was that such formal methods don't seem to be a complete solution at all and other factors, such as uncertainty, could make such formal solutions ineffective or unusable. Which is why I said it's important to analyze the requirements of the problem and then apply a solution.
Dave On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > David, > I am not a mathematician although I do a lot > of computer-related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed > toward John who had suggested that he thought that there is some > sophisticated mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) > provide such a substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core > of the contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required > mathemagic then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind > of mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary > mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by > sanitized formal representations any more than saying that your message is a > sanitized formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer > mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John at > that point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. > > I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions > would make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is > way beyond where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a > simulation of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A > simulation is not the same as the actual thing.) > > I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is > to it. I have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying > formal and informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and > the application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't > expect you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep > this in mind for future discussions. > Jim Bromer > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from a mathematician. >> It's kind of funny how people over emphasize what they know or depend on >> their current expertise too much when trying to solve new problems. >> >> I don't think it makes sense to apply sanitized and formal mathematical >> solutions to AGI. What reason do we have to believe that the problems we >> face when developing AGI are solvable by such formal representations? What >> reason do we have to think we can represent the problems as an instance of >> such mathematical problems? >> >> We have to start with the specific problems we are trying to solve, >> analyze what it takes to solve them, and then look for and design a >> solution. Starting with the solution and trying to hack the problem to fit >> it is not going to work for AGI, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I >> would need some evidence to think otherwise. >> >> Dave >> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> 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> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
