Ben,
Hey, maybe I FINALLY got your frame of mind here. Just to test this,
consider:
Suppose we change the format NOT to exclude anything at all, but rather
I/you/we set up a Wiki that includes EVERYTHING. Right next to a technical
details may be a link to a philosophical point, and right next to
This is basically the suggestion to move to a forum-type format instead of a
mailing list It has its plusses and minuses... you've cited one of the
plusses.
ben
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ben,
Hey, maybe I FINALLY got your frame of mind
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. After the recent discussion it seems this list has turned into the
philosophical musings related to AGI list. Where is the AGI engineering
list?
The problem isn't philosophy, but bad philosophy (the prevalent
Vlad:Good philosophy is necessary for AI...We need to work more on the
foundations, to understand whether we are
going in the right direction
More or less perfectly said. While I can see that a majority of people here
don't want it, actually philosophy, (which should be scientifically based),
2008/10/20 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(There is a separate, philosophical discussion, about feasibility in a
different sense - the lack of a culture of feasibility, which is perhaps,
subconsciously what Ben was also referring to - no one, but no one, in
AGI, including Ben, seems
Mike, Vladimir, Ben, et al,
The mere presence of philosophy is proof positive that there are some
domains in which GI doesn't work well at all. Are those domains truly
difficult, or just ill adapted to GI? The mere existence of Dr. Eliza would
seem to be proof positive that those domains are NOT
Just to clarify one point: I am not opposed to philosophy, nor do I consider
it irrelevant to AGI. I wrote a book on my own philosophy of mind in 2006.
I just feel like the philosophical discussions tend to overwhelm the
pragmatic discussions on this list, and that a greater number of pragmatic
I think in the past there were always difficult technological problems
leading to a conceptual controversy how to solve these problems. Time has
always shown which approaches were successful and which were not successful.
The fact, that we have so many philosophical discussions show that we still
