Alan, It is good to subdivide problems. I just have some problems with some of the confusions that you are jumping to.
Continuing... On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alan Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve Richfield wrote: > > Ben, Mike, et al: > > > MIke: Anything that can be put into words (and MUCH more) can be > > expressed mathematically. Presuming that your claims are true, then > > people are fundamentally unable to express AGI operation. If so, there > > can be no collaboration, and I think we can all agree that no one person > > is going to build an AGI from scratch. Hence, you are in effect saying > > that it is impossible to build an AGI. Right? If so, then just say so > > (which I think you already have) and let the smart ones heed your > > warnings not to waste their lives, and move on to something ELSE. > > I think what the real confusion here is that people fail to realize that > there are three, almost perfectly orthogonal mathematical domains > related to AGI. Understanding the nature of and distinctions between > these domains might actually go a long way towards breaking the ice-dam > here. > > > These domains are as follows: > > 1. The domain proper. > 2. the domain of implementation. > 3. the domain of description. > > > First, the domain proper is what we are really trying to deal with. It > is an enormous, and messy world. To the extent it obeys precise laws, it > does so on a scale literally 23 orders of magnitude smaller than what we > deal with on a daily basis. Some of those laws appear to be "select a > perfectly random number according to such and such a probability > distribution". Or even "find an equilibrium point in this 4 dimensional > system ignoring all the stupid monkeys who think the 4th dimension is > strictly one-way". > > There are many critical things to understand about the first domain at > the practically accessible scale. The first of which is that it is > utterly asymbolic. Are you suggesting that we close down all of the Physics departments at various universities? > Any symbol used to describe it comes from within the > observer, not the system. Sure, but so what? Everything said about it that isn't about some > quantum value is fuzzy and imprecise. Sure, but so what? > All models are approximate and > applicable only in a few situations under certain conditions. Sure, but so what? > Any > general agent must be able to construct and apply models and ontologies > on the fly. > Sure, but so what? > > > 2. The domain of implementation. We hope that this domain is both > computable and tractable. This domain is largely orthogonal to the first > domain because, for the sake of generality, it contains as little > information as possible about the domain but rather has the capabilities > it requires to solve the problems that are necessary to solve. It is > organized around the structure of the *AGENT*. Some non-trivial agent > architecture is a fundamental requirement of any useful AGI system. > Beyond that, it is the slate part of the blank slate. > No problems with the above. > > Finally, we have the domain of descritption. This is the domain which > attempts to measure and describe the solution implemented by the second > domain, and by extension features of the first domain. It is entirely > disposable and unnecessary for a successful AGI. Didn't you read the posting you are responding to? Without notation there is no communication, and without communication there can be no AGIs, unless you expect it to happen by accident inside of some computer, akin to what happened in nature. It's primary purpose is > to assess the success of a given AGI design. Far too many people confuse > progress in this domain with progress in the second domain. =( The only > contribution domain three can offer is that it lets you see what you're > doing in the second domain, to some extent. "Progress" only measures the distance from the starting point. It does NOT measure the accuracy of the line of progress. We can't know whether any particular "progress" is really progress until we finally succeed. > For this reason, this domain > is completely orthogonal to the other two domains. Yes. > I'm really sick to > death about hearing about results from research in this domain, I just > don't care. =| > OK. How would YOU go about developing an AGI without mathematics. This sounds a LOT like my first ROBOT. I was just 5 years old. It's body was a chunk of a beam. Its arms and legs were pieces were thin boards. It's head was a coffee can. OK, now that was done, "all" I had to do was to animate it. Hmmm, where do I start to do THAT? Suddenly I realized that the really BIG challenges lay ahead. What is YOUR plan? > > Okay, now that is cleared up, go out and build some 'bots! =P > With what? 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
