This response is for Aaron and John.
Both, however, are mathematical. You are shadow boxing. Again, conclusions with no supporting arguments. Although I don't put much value in "beliefs" or "intuition", I am guilty of a few as well. 1. I believe that AGI can be created using software we have today, on computers that exist today. AGI has not been created yet so I have no proof that this is true, even though I am acting as if it is. 2. I believe that AGI can't move forward until programs have the unlimited ability to create other programs. This hasn't happened yet and therefore I have no proof that this capability will be more successful than current approaches BUT at least it isn't one of the techniques that we know doesn't work. I am acting as if these 2 beliefs were true while I have no proof they are. Guilty as charged. If people on this list don't also believe my first assumption, I don't understand why they would be on this list! I have many arguments that point to my second assumption being correct but no proof. Some very large programs have been made trying to create AI but all have hit the problem that the difficulty and cost of creating very large programs goes up exponentially. Most people who have thought about AGI have come to the conclusion that it is a very complex problem (some believe beyond human capabilities). This complexity can be achieved by putting huge amounts of algorithms in the data and interpreting it or creating huge amounts of code and data. The second option could be done by many programmers but the size and complexity issues slow progress. Byte code for my interpreter isn't machine code so you could say that my system is executing just data BUT the difference is flexibility and speed. My interpreter is very fast and because it is a full language, almost any problem can be coded using it. I think that my systems ability to manipulate source code at compile and run time while still running is quite unique even if some of my features are also in other systems. I know of no other system where all the data, programs and features that are available to a human programmer are also available to a running program, including the documentation. Again, I have no proof that code generation is a valid path to AGI but I have many arguments that point in that direction. I still believe that intelligent people should use valid debating techniques in their discourse which means just stating conclusions isn't enough. David Clark From: Aaron Hosford [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-10-13 8:31 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real world reasoning Math != mathematical. CS should not be treated with less respect than Physics, because it is not Math while Physics is not. Both, however, are mathematical. You are shadow boxing. ------------------------------------------- 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
