> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergio Pissanetzky [mailto:[email protected]]
> 
> JOHN> What connects the two?
> SERGIO> The action functional. Which, by the way, does exhibit the
> "butterfly effect" (I published it).
> 

OK. That's why I like this list, always learning something new from the
people that know.

> 
> JOHN> . but somehow maintaining an operating paradigm across
> engagements.
> SERGIO> My operating environment is Physics. I subscribe to the paradigm
of
> Physics.
> 

Well, I was thinking more of, say you have two systems, each one has its own
computational intelligence efficiencies based on a computational model. Say
a system of stars and a system of neutrons. An observing intelligence of
each would model them locally and efficiently then be able to switch between
the two models. You could use physics to explain both but computing
intelligence within each might not be perfectly aligned with absolute
physical systems. In fact it probably wouldn't. There would be a particular
"meta" language involved. Then - that paradigmatic interloper that switched
between the two meta-languages, and others, is the fancy footwork I was
referring to.

> So, IMO, once the AGI machine is built, all the work is in supplying it
with the
> causal information that led to those products, one at a time, remove the
> entropy to cause self-organization, and compare the human results with
> what the AGI did. I admit this is a lot of work, but is much easier than
writing
> computer simulations for each one of the products. My approach is very
> different from all others. It is more like a child that goes to school and
learns
> for years and years until one day she learns about disengaging systems,
> changing computational models, etc. And is able to understand it because
> she has acquired the necessary background. My approach does that
> naturally, no other approach I know of can do it.
> 
> 

Your approach is?

I think how it works is we borrow from one computational model and apply
that to the other even though it might not be related in the hopes of
achieving some goal. An example might be a football coach that tries to
manage fashion models. It's a funny example but you get what I mean.
Somehow switching between the models generally works out due to overriding
mathematics and physics, but it may or may not work out well.

John





-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to