Jim, I have now read your summary of your AGI thinking
My reaction is that these are fairly commonsensical cognitive-science notions. There's not much to argue with here, nor do you give much meat regarding how any of the functions or structures you describe might actually be achieved in a computational (or other) system.... You also seem to leave lots of things out, focusing mainly on the declarative/conceptual level rather than other aspects of intelligence... Basically -- and being quite frank -- I don't see any AGI design in that summary, just some relatively commonplace (though mainly all sensible) cog-sci notions... -- Ben G On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
