PM: That's basically my process. It involves reading, and evaluating, collaborating, then developing. What's your process?
You & others have difficulties understanding what I’m doing here. What I’m doing first of all, broadly, is philosophy. Everyone here AFAIK has difficulties understanding that when it comes to AGI, philosophy comes *before* technology. This is what Deutsch was saying – s.o. who understands the technology – and what others have said, but v. few here realise. What that means practically first of all is having and developing a philosophy of intelligence, and what it involves – what kinds of problems a living mind must solve. If you don’t understand what kinds of problems you must solve, you can hardly build a machine to solve them. And no one here does understand AGI problems. AGI problems are simply creative problems, as opposed to rational, formulaic (narrow AI) problems. Logical systems are not creative. If you want to read here, read the extensive psychological literature on “divergent vs convergent, “ wicked/wild vs tame”, “fluid vs crystallised”, “programmed vs unprogrammed”, “structured vs unstructured reasoning “- wh. is helpful but not yet a fully developed literature, because all these distinctions come down to creative vs rational thinking. That no one here but me refers to this literature and this fundamental division of intelligence - basically “higher” vs “lower” intelligence - is a sign of how totally out of touch with reality (and RWR) this field is. What I’m also doing is elaborating creativity in terms of its various facets – conceptualisation, object recognition (vision/perception), real world reasoning (vs logical/mathematical reasoning), graphic vs geometric, imaginative vs symbolic reasoning, general vs specific reasoning. And all this, though it may sound purely airy philosophy/psychology, actually translates into practical AGI programs (as in “space program”). The current field of AGI is in many ways helpful for developing a philosophy here, because it is in every case - logic, complexity, prediction, patterns, semantic nets – doing the polar opposite of what needs to be done – trying to extend the same old narrow AI, rather than doing the radical and revolutionary thinking required to solve AGI/ creative problems. ------------------------------------------- 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
