Mike, It's you who doesn't get elementary things.
Talking about high level crystallized activities that 20-30 year-old humans do (and they are rather logical than "fluid"), do you have any idea how many transformations happened in the brain for that time. You should give examples of babies or little children playing, not natural language related activities of 30-year old researchers. What do you know about creativity? Show us a short story, a creative drawing, a film, some dance move, musical piece (not that all those are quite "mechanical" like everything). >Correct me - > >you're doing what everyone else does here, and thinking of : "how can I find a *standard* way of solving this problem?" - > >so first you try to solve the particular problem, and second you try to turn it into a standard way of solving problems like this. >What you've missed is : this is a **creative** problem, a **one-off** - as are all real world problems,.. >By definition, **you didn't/don't have a pre-existing method of solving it** - and no standard method is possible.. >When you go to search for "good books on AI", you know something about searching/research and also about AI, but you don't have a standard search method or frame. 3294039430390 people around the world reach to the same "non-standard" methods. And in what year do you live, Mike, currently people have a decade or more of using search-engines, they don't invent it. Searching in a library or an encyclopedia is not that much different. The first time it's "invented", then it's applied. Limited working-memory and the pruning of search is also how advertizing and economy works, why the options on the top are selected and the rest is usually ignored. People don't check everything, but what's near-by, what fills up their working memory and is strong enough. Then they stop searching and buy the washing powder brand which is repeated the most on the TV, or click what's on top. As of "the best neuroscience researcher", it's the same search of who's "on top" on some list, for whom the superlatives are said, the most publications in "prestigious" sources, etc. All those are very high level concepts, but I know you don't make a difference between abstract and specific, you use to talk about specifics and call it general - the set of all different chairs. >You have to **create** a method on the fly - in effect, create and modify a "quasi-program"/plan-of-action as you go along. That is actually what you did - your first (as distinct from your second) course of action. The first time you do. >Whatever search methods you used *won't* be directly applicable to further searches. In the real world, every problem situation is **different, ** even if also similar to others. ****Real world reasoning IS creative reasoning***** You don't get, that it is different depending on the POV and the resolution and level of generality. We're talking about language related problems which are of high generality. >Your next research task may be *who are the leading authorities on neuroscience?" or: "what are the main branches of neuroscience?" For each of these, you will have to create new >methods of search. What you learned re AI may help, but only somewhat. That's the nature of living in the real world . What new methods Mike, the guys who do those searches use to be 20-30 years old, they have read enough of textbooks, if not something else. That information is available at a glance in such literature, even literary written as "branches" etc. >No one in AGI understands that the function of an AGI - real world agent - is to deal with creative problems. Not standard rational problems for which methods of solution exist. But new >problems for which no method exists. What do you understand Mike, sometimes I think I'm not discussing with a homo sapiens sapiens, you don't get a thing of what I'm explaining to you. >AGI isn't about running pre-existing-plans-of-action to solve rational problems, it's about forging them to solve creative problems. About a machine not running , but creating a search. Eventually everything is "pre-existing", the molecules of your body are preexisting anything you do consciously, and all of the actions mind can do with the body are "preexisting" it just selects from them. Sorry you lack capacity to get it, it seems not all homo sapiens can. -- -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov http://research.twenkid.com http://artificial-mind.blogspot.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
