Ben, Still, you are ignoring a number of facts: 1. The brain is the only known "intelligent" system. This defines intelligence. 2. Sensory organs generate causets and feed them to afferent nerves and the brain. 3. Muscles receive causets from brain/efferent nerves. 4. Unless you believe in magic, or in what Kauffman says about Quantum Mechanics in the brain, or something else, the brain is a complex causal physical system. Physics envy or not. 5. Causal systems have properties. For example, they can learn (grow). It is not wise to dismiss these properties as "not fundamental." 6. EI is a new type of inference. It is inference because it allows one to derive new facts from known facts. It is not wise to disregard EI because "I" am or am not well informed. What does "I" have to do with EI? 7. EI does not linearize anything. It dissipates energy, which is something all physical systems can do, even the brain. 8. EI is not heuristic. 9. EI is a function that maps from a countably infinite set to another, the set of "raw" causets, as they come in from sensors or senses, broken into tiny pieces, to the set of "organized" causets. Actually the two sets are the same, they are the same causets, but the organization is a new fact. 10. 2-9 look a lot like the brain. Certainly more than any other type of inference that we know.
The reason why chemists can design chemicals, or aeronautical engineers can design aircraft, is because they understand the principles of their science. And once they understand the principles, they can use them in ingenious and creative ways. Otherwise it would be alchemy of kite flying. AGI does not have a principle. This does not mean that "anything goes." It only means that AGI needs a principle, and we all ought to be trying to find it. Only then will we be able to engineer intelligent systems. There is a big difference between posets and causets. In my paper in Complexiy, I said "partially ordered sets," but I used only causets. I know there is literature about posets, but none of them knows EI. No expert knows EI. And yes, the underlying simplicity is that complex causal physical systems, including the brain as one of them, are best modeled as causets. Ben, it seems you still don't understand EI, and/or don't believe that EI is inference, and is new. Just look no further than my section on Small Systems in my paper. Any sensible person, particularly one who is searching for machine intelligence, should be wondering how did that happen, and what can one do with it. I am sorry if I am hurting your interests, but I already warned months ago about the responsibility of claiming AGI. If this one fails, there may not be another for a long time. Sergio -----Original Message----- From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:26 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Visual Alphabet > 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/303/18883996-f0d58d57 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; d2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
