> Still, you are ignoring a number of facts: > 1. The brain is the only known "intelligent" system. This defines > intelligence.
Yeah, just as birds define flying... right... ;p > 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." I don't remember what a "causet" is, but if I replace it with "packets of information" then the above statements seem obvious I don't find the notion of causation particularly useful in a scientific context, it strikes me as mainly a "folk psychology" concept, like "free will" ... > 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. The mathematics of EI is pleasant enough, though my poset-theory-expert friend commented that it largely consists of stuff that poset theorists know already, explained using eccentric terminology... But its importance for AI or neural modeling is a different story, which I don't yet buy into... > 10. 2-9 look a lot like the brain. Certainly more than any other type of > inference that we know. I don't think poset theory "looks like the brain" very much at all. If I had to pick a branch of math to cite in this context -- Nonlinear dynamical systems theory looks a lot more like the brain, and has a lot more demonstrated use for modeling brain function. Look at Izhikevich's book on the geometry of biologically realistic neural nets, for example > 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. Chemistry and biology don't have simple, elegant unifying principles in the sense that physics does. They have multiple principles on various levels with various levels of certitude.... I suspect the science of intelligence will be the same way. And we are gradually building those principles as we do AGI and cognitive science. There will be no "quick fix", no simple elegant set of mathematical principles of intelligence that lets you formulaically design an AGI system on the back of an envelope. > 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 read that, and I really don't see what those mathematical games have to say about general intelligence.... >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. The only way you're "hurting my interests" is by occupying a small fraction of my time on a not-so-productive email thread... ;p Regarding "claiming AGI" --- nobody sane that I know is claiming to have created AGI. Claiming to be on a plausible path to AGI is a different thing. >From your standpoint, since you think I'm doomed to fail due to my not >embracing the cosmic truth of EI, I guess it's unfortunate that I claim to be on a plausible path to AGI. >From my perspective, since I genuinely think I *am*, it would be irresponsible for me to hide in a hole and shut up about it ;) -- 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
