If, as you say, "there are a vast number of actual and endless potential solutions to the problem of...," and if, " In the arts and letters – and all real world reasoning - there are demonstrably multiple/endless solutions, which are not right or wrong, but more or less good-and-bad," and if, "There are demonstrably a vast number of interpretations/criticisms of ... – and potentially endless solutions," then it would be reasonable to presume that there must be potential solutions to the problem of getting computers to reason more like people in ways that you have not considered.
Whatever it is that you are saying just does not hold together. Jim Bromer On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Unlike you Jim I support my arguments with evidence (that’s real world > reasoning for you – logic & maths don’t deal in evidence). > > In logic and maths, problems have right and wrong solutions – single (or > single sets of) solutions. > > In the arts and letters – and all real world reasoning - there are > demonstrably multiple/endless solutions, which are not right or wrong, but > more or less good-and-bad. > > There are demonstrably a vast number of interpretations/criticisms of > Hamlet – and potentially endless solutions – cf Derrida. > > Similarly there are a vast number of actual and endless potential > solutions to the problem of portraying Madonna & Child or the Romeo and > Juliet story or Shaks’ Romeo and Juliet – or a rich array of artistic > subjects.. > > None of these are “right”. There is no such thing as right or wrong in the > arts and letters. They are truly pluralistic and multicultural. > > Wherever you look in real world reasoning, you will find that there are > similarly a great variety of actual and endless potential solutions. What’s > the solution to the economic crisis? How do we assess Obama? Is AGI waxing > or waning? Is Jim a religious kook or a reasonable man? > > Everyone has a different opinion, a different solution (see any > contentious debate on this forum) – and everyone may have a point – though > some may be better/more effective/more realistic than others – but that > depends on whose criteria you’re applying - and there are multiple > (potentially endless) criteria. > > Logic and maths are utterly useless for real world reasoning > > Real world reasoning is a whole different/opposite world from the > artificial world you are locked in. > > Creative, divergent, multiple solution, wicked reasoning > > as opposed to > > rational, convergent, single solution, tame reasoning. > > New thinking as opposed to routine thinking. > > I can speak with great confidence about these things because I have > studied real world reasoning right across the spectrum. You and just about > everyone else in AGI have studied nothing of real world reasoning – and > wilfully refuse to.. > > (And to repeat for the nth time, programs can be creative and divergent > if they are reframed along the broad lines I have suggested, but > algorithmic, deterministic, single-solution programs can’t – as zillions of > examples and not a single counterexample demonstrate. > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:37 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Old World AI: Can Narrow AI = AGI? > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Maths and logic simply do not transpose to the much larger world of arts > & > > letters - & real world reasoning. Opposite worlds. > > We are talking about using digital computers to reason a little more like > people. So when you say something about "Maths and logic," I assume that > you are talking about computer programs. So the question then becomes how > do you know that computer programs "simply do not transpose to the much > larger world..."? Are you an expert from the future or something. Have > you seen the centuries of effort that failed as direly as you are > suggesting that they will. > > My objection is not that you have an opinon but that your pretention level > is so high that you act as if your pronouncements on the subject were > flawless. > Jim Bromer > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > AT:if you select 20 random people and > > > > rigorously investigate what they think of some iconic text, like a > > Jesus parable, they will conclude 40 different things. The magic of > > discourse is a) that there is method to the madness of producing N > > interpretations, where N close to infinity and b) that in a select few > > cases, not unlike the collapse of the wave function, this infinity > > collapses to the desired outcome.Most likely visual scenes are > > evoked/involved in which we easily > > > > select the desired outcomes out of other nonsensical interpretations. > > > > Actually, there are a potential infinity of diverse interpretations of > any > > text (or "discourse") - and any visual scene. This is basic to the > world of > > arts and letters (and rhetoric) - and is borne out by the reality - > people > > are still producing the millionth+n interpretations of Hamlet and show no > > sign of stopping. > > > > The same is true of visual scenes: try asking people what was going on > here: > > > > > http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/10/1027_candidates_positions/image/candidates.jpg > > > > People can agree that they are Obama and McCain, but not what they're > doing. > > > > Maths and logic simply do not transpose to the much larger world of arts > & > > letters - & real world reasoning. Opposite worlds. Like narrow AI vs > AGI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2 > > Modify Your Subscription: > > 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/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.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
