At least you acknowledged that you might not understand what I am talking
about. When you get on your keyboard you are exhibiting different kinds of
behavior. And you are expressing different kinds of behaviors. I have thought
about this a long time and I found that it was nearly impossible to create
abstractions on behavior because I believe that human behavior is based on
complex (and overlapping) acts of intelligence. But by designating behavior as
procedures, the idea becomes simplified in the terms more familiar from
computer programming. So I can see the interaction between a human teacher and
a program that is programmed to try to learn as interactions of procedures. I
don't have to worry about the extent of human behaviors to get some leverage
out of the idea and I don't have to worry what it means exactly for an AGI
program to exhibit "behavior". It is all nice and simple but at the same time
accurate. Simplifications are necessary for working on a challenging project,
but at the same time they have to get to the essence of problem if they are
going to offer any potential to use them to get some leverage on the project.
Most guys who have been thinking about AI / AGI for some time are familiar with
the concepts of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. The transition
from a procedure in computer science to procedural knowledge is not all that
simple but I am saying that the fact that declarative statements are run as
procedures in computer programming shows that the conversion from declarative
knowledge to procedural knowledge is not all that radical an idea. And seeing
that human behavior can be parsed into procedural components is beneficial
because it represents an abstracted essence that has material significance to
the creation of an AGI program that should, for example, be able to generalize
from a procedure that can be taught to it by example. Of course there is more
to it. Jim Bromer
> Subject: Re: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say.
> From: wann...@ababian.com
> Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 07:28:54 -0500
> To: a...@listbox.com
>
> What's that fish that spews ink when threatened?
>
>
> Jim whinged:
> 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.
>
> me (andi):
> I am not going to explain Hofstadter. If you want to know more, listen to
> his talks, read his books, or remain in ignorance. I was not trying to appeal
> to authority, just trying to point you to a source I find valuable.
>
> You have invented two terms I find suspect: "procedure knowledge" and
> "procedure inference". When I get back to a keyboard and don't have to type
> on my phone, I might explain my problems with them in more detail, but for
> now, I will say I don't think they are sufficiently defined to be used and I
> will concede that I don't understand what you mean by them.
> Andi
-------------------------------------------
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
