I have said that I just about have it figured out. So now the clock is
running. If after a year I am still saying that I have it figured out but I
can't quite get my AGI programming running then I would say that I should be
shown the same latitude that any researcher should be shown. I should be given
some extra time. (And remember that a lot of us are not able to work on this
full time.) But if two years goes by and I am still saying that I haven't
gotten my AGI program to work but I have it all figured out then my credibility
should be dropping. At some point you have to report on your own experiments
honestly. And at some point you have to accept the idea that a negative result
on your experiment shows that your ideas were not as powerful as you thought. I
don't have the answers to complexity. I have not said that my AGI program is
going to be as smart as an adult human being. I am talking about minimal
competency that goes beyond contemporary AGI programs. Andi,A number of people
have said, like you have, that they understood what I was talking about. I
believed them. But not one of them has shown the ability and/or the desire to
discuss my ideas as if they actually did understand what I am talking about.
So I have to come to the conclusion that they were mistaken. The attempt to
dismiss someone else's remarks based on the categorization of something that
you had already considered or studied is not that unusual. It is evidence of
reasoning by previous learning so it is not be surprising. However, it is not
the basis for intellectual insight. At some point you should be wondering if
there might be something that I have been saying that you did not understand.
I now realize that it would be nearly impossible to explain something to a
person who is not able to accept the fact that he does not understand what you
are talking about. That actually makes sense and you might start there. But
at least you are starting to talk about something. However, arguments based on
authority (Hofstadter says) and arguments based on popular opinion (you are not
on the same page as us) are two of Aristotle's fallacies of reasoning. If you
are unable to explain why Hofstadter's position on analogy means that
text-based AGI is not feasible then perhaps you might take the time to find
some quotes from Hofstadter to support your opinion. Jim Bromer
Subject: Re: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say.
From: wann...@ababian.com
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 22:08:13 -0500
To: a...@listbox.com
I'm guessing you're just not familiar with Hofstadter's position. For his
people, analogy and metaphor are broader than what most people think of. It's a
function that happens several times every second. It's his universal algorithm,
as it were. In this view of concepts, it becomes clear that text and word
processing is insufficient. You're just not on that page with us. andi
Jim Bromer wrote:
And metaphors are only one kind of relationship of similarity.
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
