1) Ben: I, personally, think it will be best to connect AGI systems to robots in order to achieve human-like general intelligence.... In such a system, the logic and math underlying the AGI's algorithms will be used to interpret the data from the robot's sensors, and to control the data fed to the robot's actuators....
All very well in broad principle. But the *evidence* is that robots/computers cannot yet produce any AGI-worthy percepts or concepts of the world whatsoever – cannot really make any AGI-worthy sensory contact with the world – and are as vast a distance away from understanding even the simplest of real world scenes, let alone individual objects, as they are from understanding variations on the simplest of two/three word sentences (as I have explained elsewhere). This has proved an extraordinarily intractable set of problems. Not knowing where the solutions lie – what form successful percepts and concepts of the world will take, - you are nevertheless proceeding on the basis that logic and maths will provide the solution, and are central to an AGI architecture, despite their extreme and consistent lack of success so far. Far from being a troll in this area, I repeatedly try to engage with the problem here – with the forms that successful perceptualisation and conceptualisation must take. You simply aren’t interested in any solution that isn’t logicomathematical – isn’t within your current competency – and don’t have any ideas to offer about how logic & maths or anything else will directly solve these problems. I would say that you are the true AGI troll – by not engaging directly with the real problems,you are holding the field back. 2) Ditto re your rocket analogy. You are actually a rocket builder who has defied every principle of serious creativity by building an extremely complex machine, without the slightest evidence or proof of concept, that your machine is equipped for flight – for its principal function – in this case for AGI. You have designed a lot of engine/architecture, so to speak, but you don’t have a take-off mechanism period – and cannot explain in any way how your machine will achieve takeoff or airborne thrust – how it will be either general or creative. Wow. Again I would say you are the real troll – this is not the way to go about a serious project, and absolutely the wrong example to set - you are again characteristically not engaging with the main problem first – which is what must be done. And many – many AGI-ers, - not just me, have told you this. (Partly in your defence, this is a field-wide phenomenon, but it is still terrible). 3) Because I am engaging with the problems, I will in the not too distant future, explain the exact nature of real world reasoning – and how it is totally different from logicomathematical induction/deduction etc. (To talk of it being “imaginative reasoning” is to identify the medium of its reasoning, but not the main ways in which it differs as a form of inference). From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:56 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real world reasoning On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: You & others think that an AGI computer is going to be wise about the world by sifting through textual documents, and working out logically whether “JOHN LOVES MARY”. You're battling a straw man here, hmm? I've already been explicit that I, personally, think it will be best to connect AGI systems to robots in order to achieve human-like general intelligence.... In such a system, the logic and math underlying the AGI's algorithms will be used to interpret the data from the robot's sensors, and to control the data fed to the robot's actuators.... Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in whether the completed system manages to learn how to control the robot intelligently... I imagine you as a troll watching a team of engineers and scientists build a rocket. You, the troll, deny the theory of rocketry has any relevance to building real rockets, because that theory uses math, and the world is after all not obviously made of math. Anyway they didn't teach you much about math back in troll school. Meanwhile, the engineers and scientists are about 25% done with building their rocket. And you're wasting your time, and causing annoyance, standing there pointing your trolly little finger at them, screeching "Hahaha!! You idiots, can't you see that your supposedly 25% complete rocket can't fly 25% of the way to the moon?? Don't you understand that if you want anyone to believe your completed rocket will fly to the moon, you need to show success according to quantifiable metrics of incremental progress; you need to show real evidence!!!" Eventually, when the rocket blasts off, the troll brushes the ashes off his beard and somehow convinces himself it was just an illusion... Duuuhhh... -- Ben G AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
