You consistently overgeneralize, Mike. *All* AGIers do this. *All* AGIers fail to do that. If we all did things the same, there would be no point in this list. Your opinion as to what needs to be done (and the reasons for it), when stated clearly, is welcome, but your overgeneralizations and assumptions about our failure to do things you deem necessary, and your demands that we change just because you think we should, tend to receive negative responses. I'm not sure you've noticed or care, but I'm throwing it out there in the hope that it's former.
Please stop assuming that you personally have full knowledge into what we are doing or how we are doing it, what our plans entail, or how limited we are in our ability to flex as the need arises. Engineering/design moves forward in fits and starts. Progress halts when a new, unsolved aspect of the problem crops up, and then leaps forward when a solution is found. This is happening for each of us who is actually doing anything with our ideas. If/when each of us runs into a problem that can only be solved a certain way, we will stop and reconsider until we have found that way. Saying that we are all incapable of seeing the light (unlike yourself) is an insult to our intelligence and intellectual integrity. We are not blind. You simply haven't convinced us, and likely won't until convincing proof arises, which is only a matter of time if you're right. At that point, should it occur, most of us will modify our designs accordingly and continue on about our business as before, just as we've done with countless other issues that have cropped up. Possibly a temporary challenge, but in the end, No Big Deal. In my own system -- and I'm sure I'm not alone -- fluidity is a core design principle, whether or not you see that. I specifically do *not* assume a "full knowledge/fully developed mind". I consider learning from experience to be fundamental to all intelligence. So when you make these broad, sweeping statements about all AGIers and all AGI projects, you are making patently false statements about things you personally know very little about. You have not seen my code. You haven't paid attention to my design. And you have no idea what's in my head or how I approach things because you don't understand what I'm saying when I explain things to you. What you personally and specifically are doing is assuming your *own* "full knowledge", as if you have perfect insight and complete information about each and every one of us, which quite honestly is ridiculous. *This is why you get negative responses when you aren't outright ignored.* On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Mike A: > > All of Mike T's arguments seem to me to stem from a standpoint of > extreme empiricism. He doesn't seem to acknowledge anything other than > precisely what is under consideration. Even though a chair top can look > different in all cases, in all cases there IS a constant, and that is that > the essence of a chair persists. Philosophers have long fought with these > issues, and as most know it was Kant who came closest (arguably) to > reconciling the empiricists and the rationalizers. > > No I’m not a pure empiricist. (The philosophical/psychological background > is loosely important – recent comments seem unaware that this is one of > the most controversial areas). > > The difference is indeed about rationality – about what *kind* of > schema/classificatory devices the mind (human or any real world mind) must > impose on its images of objects. Rationality – and everyone here, except > for me, is in effect a rationalist – presupposes a CONSTANT schema – just > as you have said, and just as Plato implied 2,500 years ago. That’s because > you are still intellectually living in the age of text, where everything > you see is constant and unchanging. > > Move into the new millennium of movies, which are now a sine qua non, and > you realise that everything is FLUID/MOVING – and different individual > versions of things are different from (and in effect fluid versions of) > others. > > There is no constant, essential waterdrop or human being, or chair or > apple – especially in a world in which all things may be and usually are > transformed by external means in all kinds of way – like being stepped on, > smashed, burned or fragmented - if you just look, that lack of a constant > is self-evident. But you don’t look – you a priori seek to impose the > constant frameworks of language, maths and logic on a fluid world – > determined to defend them to the death – despite the fact that they > obviously are a complete, never failing to fail, bust for > conceptualisation/recognition and anything AGI. > > For a fluid, transformational world and objects, you need fluid, > transformational schemas – but there is nothing in the “languages” you know > about them, and you’re not open to new ideas. > > Fluid schemas are doubly essential because – the other thing that all here > forget – an AGI of any kind must get to know and classify objects > *piecemeal/gradually*, developmentally. The first chair or dog you see may > not be at all a typical or common one. All the current approaches to AGI > assume a *full knowledge/fully developed mind* - with well structured > concept graphs and a fully developed grammar - which has in effect already > learned more or less all it really needs to know - quite, quite absurd. > Every approach in the field is only appropriate to a fully knowledgeable > narrow AI routine/subsystem, not to a real world AGI, complete system > gradually, fluidly getting to know the world. > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > 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
