understanding is grouping things and actions into similarities and unsimilar things and actions in the mind.
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 2:43 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies < nano...@live.com> wrote: > Bar a subtle difference, we're mostly in agreement. To my understanding, > every de-facto fantastical claim isn't worth researching into. > > At a certain level of abstraction, contextual relevance is lost. This is > reported as being the bane of object-oriented programming. Why then delve > into the abstract without a deabstraction methodology in place, with which > to systematically process the information with? > > Therefore, rather state the research question simply and clearly, even > hypothetically. Perhaps then, measurable progress would be more likely. > > I readily accept my mind does not think like most-other minds do, but to > my mind, asking a question that has already been answered, serves little > intellectual purpose. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, 11 September 2021 23:36 > *To:* AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] UNDERSTANDING -- Part I -- the Survey, online > discussion: Sunday 10 a.m. Pacific Time, evening in Europe, you are invited > > On 9/11/21, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <nano...@live.com> wrote: > > A digital machine cannot understand. I don't know why we're trying to > invoke > > a reality, which simply isn't. Calling a dog's tail a leg, does not add > up > > to it having 5 legs. We're just playing word games with existentialism, > > trying to give gestalt to an elective illusion. It's also referred to as; > > forcing the issue. > > > > Give the machine a comprehension test then, using 2nd, and/or 3rd > language > > proficiency expressions in pseudo-random foreign dialect and un-English > > grammar. What result would you get? Understanding, advanced recognition, > or > > functional failure? > > > > My guess is, at best an error message stating: "Would you repeat that > > please. I don't understand." AI-driven Dragon Dictate, although a > > most-useful program, is a prime example of this. The routine would also > end > > up in a fatal loop. Why? Because it's probably 3X+1 oriented. > > > > Suppose understanding was the beginning of wisdom, what would > understanding > > then be? > > > > I think the more-realistic research question should be: "Could an AGI > entity > > - even a biomechanical one - be encoded in such a manner as to achieve a > > lower-level of recognizable, clinical consciousness (when compared to > humans > > in general)?" > > The reality is that nobody claims their machine is conscious -- but > regularly people claim their machine understands, but they don't say > what that means > > > > > > Or stated differently; considering modern service bots, consciousness > can be > > faked. How to tell fake from real? > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Saturday, 11 September 2021 04:50 > > To: AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > > Subject: Re: [agi] UNDERSTANDING -- Part I -- the Survey, online > discussion: > > Sunday 10 a.m. Pacific Time, evening in Europe, you are invited > > > > It's an easy question to answer... if we know what the machine > > understands, we know what it can do. If we don't know what it > > understands, we might not. So that's why we don't want sloppy > > definitions of understanding in an opaque age of gigantic neural > > networks. > > > > On 9/10/21, Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't understand why we are so hung up on the definition of > >> understanding. I think this is like the old debate over whether machines > >> could think. Can submarines swim? > >> > >> Philosophy is arguing about the meanings of words. It is the opposite of > >> engineering, which is about solving problems. Define what you want the > >> machine to do and figure out how to do it. > >> > >> I know what it means for a human to understand or think or be conscious. > >> For machines it's undefined. What problem does defining them solve? > >> Machines learn, predict, and act to satisfy goals. What else do you want > >> them to do? > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:06 AM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> On 9/9/21, WriterOfMinds <jennifer.hane....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Hey Mike ... I took a look at the Survey doc, and it appears that a > >>> > lot > >>> of > >>> > the opinions are under the wrong names. You've entered my definition > >>> > as > >>> > James Bowery's, Daniel Jue's definition as mine, and so forth (looks > >>> like an > >>> > "off by one" sort of error that continues down the document). > >>> > >>> > >>> I think the problem is only that I put the name following the > >>> description, right?? I'll switch it around tomorrow so that you see > >>> the name first. I quick checked yours and it looked right. > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------ > >>> > Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI > >>> > Permalink: > >>> > > https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M525b91709c9e58f430cb0c40 > >>> > Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription > >>> > > *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/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M05e36469c70f4cee7f86ec99> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M45227021d3c016e16ddd89f9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
