contempt.
God was a designer long before He took up maths.
From: J. Andrew Rogers mailto:jar.mail...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:23 PM
To: AGI mailto:a...@listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Mike
: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts
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
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
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
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
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
I've made two ultra-brilliant statements in the past few days. One is that
a concept can simultaneously be both precise and vague. And the other is
that without judgement even opinions are impossible. (Ok, those two
statements may not be ultra-brilliant but they are brilliant right? Ok,
maybe
Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has made
me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires
understand the constraints that problems impose on a solution. So, it's sort
of a unbelievably complex constraint satisfaction problem. What we've
I guess what I was saying was that I can test my mathematical theory and my
theories about primitive judgement both at the same time by trying to find
those areas where the program seems to be good at something. For example, I
found that it was easy to write a program that found outlines where
