You have some good questions but they are mixed in with a lot of garbiage. I wish you could learn some self-control so we could talk about the central issues. I don't have time for your crap right now.Jim Bromer From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:53:29 +0100
Here you are Jim – save you wasting your and our time. Show us how your text program will meet this absolutely basic AGI challenge which you have already said it can. Your pure text program knows about certain relationships between CAT and BALL. It knows say, that cats PLAY WITH balls, cats SEE balls and maybe more. If it’s an AGI it must be able to produce NEW RELATIONSHIPS between them – whether reactively by understanding new texts, or proactively by creating new relationships.when asked e.g. new relationships such as CAT PAWS AT BALL CAT SITS ON BALL CAT JUMPS ON BALL ...new KINDS of relationships which cannot be inferred from existing knowledge –e.g. knowledge that CATS PLAY WITH / SEE BALLS (You can also call this “generalizing”, or more precisely, it involves the capacity to think in GENERAL TERMS – wh./ needs some explanation). You, a real AGI, can produce an endless set of new relationships for these two entities – as tests of divergent thinking demonstrate – e.g. “How many uses can you think of for a hammer?”. You can think of new uses for hammers, cats and balls alike. No text program has ever produced a single new kind of relationship – or to put that another way, shown the slightest potential for AGI or creative/divergent thinking. Your proposed program apparently has the ability to do this. Show us how - show us that you are not engaging as PM puts it in “verbiage” – and have some idea what you’re talking about. I can save you years of life – new kinds of relationships between things are NOT established by symbolic means, only by figurative and imaginative means. ANd there is a precise reason why this is. But first let’s see what you can do – if anything - (apart from being predictable and making excuses). From: Jim Bromer Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:40 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. PM, I will be happy to discuss this with you after I finish the summary. I thought that someone suggested that I write a summary but looking back I now see that it was only a bit of undigested rhetoric. PM, Your criticism is only about style. You have not actually formed any specific questions about issues in my summary. If you cannot find anything that makes you wonder what I am getting at in my summary then a picture and a specification isn't going to help. Mike Tintner is willing to talk about a lot of substarantive issues but only on his terms. When I tried to start a premised hypothetical conversation with him on one issue that he had mentioned he completely blew it off because the hypothesis started off with something that he could not accept. This showed me that he was not willing to focus on particular issues other than to describe those that would support his basic premises. I just explained in my response to Mike Archibold how something I said could be turned into a specific test. I did not go much further because I haven't created and run the experiment yet, however, that could be seen as a specification and a requirement. The only criticism that I think has any merit so far was Steve's. What I am describing would probably be too slow. I had thought that I had found a way around that problem, but now as I work further on the summary the complexity of what I am describing has returned. I am truly sorry that you others are unable to benefit from what I am writing. However, there is no good reason to become annoyed about that. If you have any questions about what I am writing I will be happy to discuss them with you after I finish the summary. Jim Bromer From: [email protected] Jim, To reiterate for the Nth time, software developers communicate with one another and themselves via requirements and specifications, not synopses. Having target state diagrams (UML or other) with static and dynamic views will help people understand what is going on in your head. Of course you understand it. But if you want assistance, or you are interested any at all in having other people understand it. You should consider creating requirements, specifications, and diagrams. Text summaries are only for philosphers, not software developers. Just my opinion. ~PM AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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
