Mike, On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> John, > > What you're saying is somewhat like: > > "I find it amusing that he tries to define what is general in relation to > what is specific..." > > ""I find it amusing that he tries to define what is abstract in relation > to what is concrete..." > > That's what we're supposedly trying - and have - to do here. To define > what is the form of general thought - how the brain manages to think about > "forms/shapes" and not just "squares" or "triangles" - how the brain > manages to see a "human" or a "man" and not just the highly specific form > of "John Rose", and even then to recognize "John Rose" when that individual > may come in radically different forms over time. > I suspect that we must look at things at a MUCH higher level - above even the object-oriented level of forms, squares, men, John, etc. There is a level WAY up there where things get much simpler, where cause-and-effect rules everything, where things are instantiated by their mere existence, etc. And then, there is a level even above THAT, where the relatively simple rules are laid out to self-adapt a bunch of goo to be able to perform at such a high level. This top level is where we should be putting our attention. > > You cannot define the general except in relation to the specific, the > abstract except in relation to the concrete, the generic except in terms of > the individual, the fluid and irregular except in terms of the rigid and > regular. > I believe that Ben, et al, have been making the same mistake you are here. You are presuming that a thing must instantiated to be able to manipulate it, where the REAL problem is to develop the methods of auto-instantiation (e.g. a neuron) so that these things will work WITHOUT any a priori rules. > > What is amusing - comically absurd - is when people think they can > survive with just one and not the other - as AGI-ers do at the present - > when people think they can scale up the highly specific forms of narrow AI > thinking to be general intelligence - and fail universally and without > exception - and still cling to the same old rigid forms of specialist > thinking - and refuse to envisage that there is a totally different > *level* of thought - that there is not just one, but two halves to the > brain. > When I read this, I think "yes, this guy's got it". Then, I realize that we have different understandings for many of the words that you used, so I really have little/no idea what you are thinking. Steve =============== > -----Original Message----- From: John G. Rose > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:01 PM > > To: AGI > Subject: RE: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of > Intelligence/AGI) > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Richfield >> [mailto:steve.richfield@gmail.**com<[email protected]> >> ] >> >> Mike is saying that no presently known mathematical methods can explain >> GI, and I agree. >> >> > He's saying this mainly because he doesn't know them. Though yes there are > mathematical aspects of GI which haven't been adequately described. > > I find it amusing though as he attempts to describe AGI without > mathematical > handles, his GI grasps at symbols in its own way, that of which can be > interpreted from a mathematical viewpoint. A system looking for an > alternate > to symbols in a world of symbols, trying to describe what GI does with > symbols, without them :) > > John > > > > ------------------------------**------------- > AGI > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** > 6952829-59a2eca5<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&;<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > ------------------------------**------------- > AGI > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** > 10443978-6f4c28ac<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/** > member/?&id_**secret=10443978-ebee85ab<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
