James, You appear to be a bit new here, having missed several earthshaking discoveries - as the world just yawns.
OK, so let's see if I can explain RRAA in a short posting here. If two logical people reach an impasse after understanding each other's arguments, then one or both MUST base their valid logic on an invalid assumption - but how could this possibly happen with someone else CAREFULLY examining the logic? Simple - they BOTH share the SAME invalid assumption(s), so the problem is invisible to them both. Now you (or the ultimate AGI) listens to their craziness and points out the invalid assumption. Right? WRONG!!! The ONE thing they CAN agree on is that YOU (or the ultimate AGI) are wrong, and the dispute continues in the face of perfect logic!!! So, what is the success path? Simple - you must NOT show the solution to the parties until AFTER you have taught them how RRAA works - and that they absolutely MUST share at least one invalid assumption to be having their dispute, so, if they don't like your candidate for an invalid assumption, then they should either do better, or accept your candidate. Take the abortion debate, whose best invalid assumption candidate is the government lottery where women are randomly selected and presented with newborn babies - and are prohibited from selling, trading, or otherwise finding other women who actually want the newborn baby. Of course, the random selection here is based on the failure of birth control. Allowing these women to sell or trade their babies solves this, because babies are worth a LOT of money. Who would be crazy enough to just throw away $20-50k by getting an abortion? Everyone would win, including the babies, who would then have mother's who actually WANT them. This same approach works on (nearly?) all disputes that aren't based on might making right, but it takes a really fresh look at things to see the invalid assumptions. So there it is - the basis of nearly all human strife, wars, etc., laid bare with accompanying solution. Unfortunately, though arguably worth more than an AGI because it lets you and I do things that transcend even what is currently expected from a successful AGI, it has no wealthy sponsors, so here it lays on this forum, soon to be forgotten - yet again. Meanwhile, the wars continue... Thoughts? Steve Richfield On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, 8:04 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have a proof of how to resolve disputes, you have a proof of how to > select the better of two models of the world induced from the same set of > data. > > Have you published this earth-shaking discovery with clear implications > for machine learning? Or are you afraid if you publish, someone will > implement it and turn us all into paperclips? > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-M326976eecd4acd8013c875da> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-Me5e8b720bbcee7986a562878 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
