I did learn something from Stan's curiosity of deconstruction. I said that you
need many statements to understand one statement and in another section I said
that all understanding was just an imaginative projection onto a situation. At
first I thought I was just using a figure of speech on the second remark but
when I started thinking of it I realized that I consider both statements to be
accurate. So I was able to refine my theory a little. All understanding is
just the examination of the imaginative projection of many insights onto a
situation.Jim Bromer
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:16:46 -0400
I am not sure what Stan meant by a lack of depth but I assume that he was
talking about definitions of the terms that he linked on. So, for example, I
should have included a deeper definition of the term "understanding"? No. I
was saying that to understand one idea you need to understand many related
ideas. And that recognition requires some kind of imaginative projection of
previously acquired insight. If you get it then enough said. You already have
the many related ideas that you need to understand the concept.
I'm sorry I just do not see the foundations of the other criticisms. There is
no question that the explanation of an actual experiment and the honest
reporting of the results would be more inspiring if something promising was
achieved, but the usual academic style paper does not meet that standard of
achievement. The effort to award yourself for belonging to a group who have
mastered the style of the academic paper but who have not actually contributed
anything substantial through their papers is nothing to be proud of. And that
is why most of the criticisms that I received were criticisms of style and of
empty blanket dismissals that found nothing in my paper actually worth
criticizing. If you had made a little effort you might have actually
contributed something. Stan at least created a curiosity of deconstruction.
I thought I got an interesting challenge about the limitations of text based
AGI but it turned out to be part of an argument that computer programs could
not make inferences!
And the criticism that my program would not be fast enough may be correct but
it was the first thing I said in my summary. That was what I was alluding to
when I pointed out that complexity is a major problem.
There was not one good criticism of my summary. None of you actually seemed to
understand what I was saying. I find that hard to believe but the empty
criticisms leave me with that conclusion. So even though I was perturbed by
the insipid pettiness of some of the criticisms, there is no question in my
mind that they represent the rejection by an audience who were truly unable to
understand what I was talking about.
The only question is whether I can turn these ideas into some kind of working
model.
Jim Bromer
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
