From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-
level
GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a
cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any
thing
as a thing -
Agree.
As far as a system is not pure deductive, it can be creative. What
usually called creative thinking often can be analyzed into a
combination induction, abduction, analogy, etc, as well as deduction.
When these inference are properly justified, they are rational.
To treat creative and
P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though
*not* formal) form:
rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks
together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal
bricks of a building)
with rationality, you
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
(On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational
thinking. That's its strength and its weakness).
Pei
In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to
engage with the troll.
Mike does not discuss
BillK,
Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-(
I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing
list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments,
but in the way they are presented, as well as in the
politeness/rudeness toward
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I
feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he
combines
A)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I
feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
Well,
yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of
the American Way ;-p
Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans
often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans
more seriously...
I think we had some mutual
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I
feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
However, I find
In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being
taken advantage of.
That is quite possible; it's certainly happened before...
As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in
mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all the
Top posted here:
Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within
constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever bricks you are using
they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway
you please. Just by defining bricks you are already applying
Ben Goertzel wrote:
yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter
of the American Way ;-p
Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans
often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by
non-Americans more seriously...
Except
John:Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist
hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a
limiting
rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I
want
to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with
And when a Chinese doesn't answer a question, it usually means No ;-)
Relatedly, I am discussing with some US gov't people a potential project
involving customizing an AI reasoning system to emulate the different
inferential judgments of people from different cultures...
ben
On Fri, Dec 19,
Richard and Ben,
If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's
writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me
know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication,
at least when talking to British and American people --- who knows, it
may
Well, I think you might have overreacted to his writing style for cultural
reasons
However, I also think that -- to be Americanly blunt -- you're very unlikely
to learn anything from conversing with Mike, nor to make much positive
impact on his own understanding by conversing with him.
So in
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
Well, I think you might have overreacted to his writing style for cultural
reasons
However, I also think that -- to be Americanly blunt -- you're very
unlikely to learn anything from conversing with Mike,
On
Pei Wang wrote:
Richard and Ben,
If you think I, as a Chinese, have overreacted to Mike Tintner's
writing style, and this is just a culture difference, please let me
know. In that case I'll try my best to learn his way of communication,
at least when talking to British and American people ---
Ben,
I'm glad that you have decided to respond to, - or at least recognize - my
criticisms/points re creativity, because they are extremely important and
central to AGI - as I said, it isn't just you but everyone who is avoiding
them - when it is in all your interests to confront them
Mike,
A very messily formatted rough draft of From Complexity to Creativity is
here
http://www.goertzel.org/books/complex/contents.html
Alas I long ago lost the wordperfect 5.1 file that was used to generate the
final proofs way back when...
The chapter that gives an overall theory of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
