I think "0 = infinity" is a legitimate thought in the way that it is kind of a look at all quantity in a sort of atomic way. If you just had a thought "This is all numbers." I think dogmatist oriented philosophers change the "rules" all the time by showing the "truth" which is usually some inner, subconscious drive unknown to everybody but Nietzsche if I read him correctly! The question seems to be what variation of philosophic system might be implementable, which I think is what you are saying.
On 8/9/13, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Archbold [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> The problems start in strong AI, however, when you try to reconcile things >> like >> "beginning, cause, one vs. many, sameness/difference/likeness, complete >> vs. >> incomplete, possible, >> potential..." etc etc etc. Just considering one of these is fine, >> one can usually make sense out of it, but the problem is that all these >> concepts >> are concurrently taken up in something in the world. >> How do you even begin to work all of that together? If the approach >> is emergence, nobody does, they just place hope in a clever learning >> scheme >> can determine those things. It might work -- I'm not knocking >> evolutionary >> learning algorithms. It might not though, and then it's back to head >> scratching >> on these long standing philosophy issues, like the potential vs actual, >> appearance in relation to existence... on and on like that. >> > > I know. All these fuzzy concepts from the philosophers, Kant is like that I > just can't read Kant. Picture loading them all in a knowledge graph. What is > "essence" across the various philosophies through time until now and how > does that relate to "being". They should just load up into the system aren't > all these things just subgraphs with relative and changing definitions? > > What we can do with AGI but the philosophers cannot is change the rules from > the ground up. Modify logic to see what happens. What if "up" really is > "down" or outside is really inside? How does the system refactor itself? > Some AGI's couldn't deal with that though they might have to re-emerge what > the "essence of being" is. The AGI system really needs to be able to do > that. The shining light of rationalism has to de-rationalize itself locally > in various ways in order to see into the shadows of unknown so it can ingest > new rules, those of which were previously illogical... and some new rules > might require total system refactoring. Human brains struggle with total > system refactoring. A 0=∞ conjecture is deflected rather than subsumed. > There is too much logic against it. A full integration would yield > unacceptable systemic risk. > > John > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
