> SERGIO REPLIES> This work is narrow AI, and will never result in AGI. I > support your work because it accumulates experience and will be useful to > compare with AGI results. To obtain AGI, you must study the simplicity > underlying the complexity of systems. Then you will be able to understand > the complexity. If you limit yourself to studying the complexity, then, all > you get is more and more complexity.
The underlying simplicity being that the brain and mind are best modeled as partially ordered sets? ;-p I did read your papers, and discussed them with an expert on poset theory who happened to be visiting me , and came away unconvinced you'd discovered anything fundamental... and also unconvinced that you're familiar with the general poset theory literature, e.g. all the other standard ways of approximately linearizing partial orders... I think the quest to find some basic mathematical trick, equation or structure at the heart of intelligence is doomed. It's "physics envy." Biological systems *are* complex. Of course they have some simple underlying principles, but creating an intelligent system based on those principles alone is an extraordinarily hard problem, much harder than making additional use of heuristics inspired by observation of what works in the real world... Similarly, designing chemicals based purely on underlying simple physical principles is possible in principle, but would be extraordinarily hard and is not the way chemists do things... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
