Derek, More good comments...
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Derek Zahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve Richfield wrote: > > > Obviously, you haven't grokked this yet. > > Yes, this is true. I'm afraid that your subsequent explanations haven't > really helped much either. You seem to be saying that: > > - "Everything" physical works by integrating forces > - Differential equations mathematically model such forces > - Therefore... here I'm less clear. Either you're saying that we can > model minds (which are the product of physical things) with differential > equations, or that minds themselves are differential equation simulators > (and therefore AGI programs should most importantly be differential > equation simulators), or something else... > First, your are asking for my speculations, in which even I have rather limited faith. It is hard to split "modeling" and functionality, except when you do something (like "weak" AGI) that is clearly NOT being done in minds. Since I am not proposing anything that is clearly not being done in our own minds, I am unable to split these possibilities. > > In any case: > > >> ... barring some revolutionary new perspective on cognition, > > > > Which is exactly what we are looking for here. > > >>just to start: what exactly are you thinking the variables in > differential equations should refer to > > > > Whatever works > > Surely you can see that this is not very compelling; This is what the neural network folks do - make everything available and see what gets incorporated. This appears to be the fundamental basis for self-organization. Do you see any other possibilities to guide self-organization? gotta have a little more development to justify any more time spent on it. > Young bull to old bull: Look up on that hill. I see some cows up there. I'm going to run up there and get me one. Old bull to young bull: You just run along son. I'll take my time and get the rest of them. You appear to be in way too much of a hurry to forge any new trails. > > Instead, you just insist that it must be necessary, but in a fallacious > way: > > > Let me get this right. You expect to build intelligent systems while > > willfully ignoring the very principles that governs all changes in our > > environment?!!! > > There are so many ways to answer this it's hard to know where to even > begin... > - Evolution constructed intelligent systems without thinking carefully > about differential > equations (by any reasonable definition of those concepts), so it is > hardly necessary. > On the contrary. Primitive systems like in the hydra are all about process control, which is all about diffy-Q. This is where things began. Who knows how much of this is still inside our heads, but clearly the hypothalamus must work this way. - There are many ways of viewing "the very principles that govern all > changes in our environment". Some examples would help to make this point. > That describes quantum mechanics. It describes causality. Etc. It's all > a matter or perspective. > What is needed is the MOST macroscopic way to view things that still works. quantum mechanics provides little/no macroscopic guidance, whereas diffy-Q appears to offer a strong possibility. Granted that "weak" AGI is more macroscopic than diffy-Q. The **BIG** question is whether it can be made to work in any sort of useful way. I am unconvinced, but others (like Ben) are undeterred and are charging on ahead. Time will tell. > - The map is not the territory. > ... not until integrated circuits came along, whereupon the "print" became the device - a little like Wilhelm Reich's infamous machines. Have you ever heard of orgone energy? People naturally put more stock in well-developed perspectives or at least > their own poorly-formed intuitions instead of adopting such from an > Internet forum. > They SHOULD be considering all the possibilities, applying the scientific method, and going with whatever works. > > When you have more developments (in particular, more specific answers than > "whatever works", This is good enough for pretty much everyone who is working the self-organizing puzzle. What other sort of approach to self-organization would you suggest? > and something beyond a general call for a revolutionary theory), More than a call, diffy-Q provides some pretty precise guidance. > do post more about it! Without something more, it is hard to justify > diverting from one's own ideas. > In your case, I think I may agree. Steve ------------------------------------------- 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
