On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > See your point. But, remember airplanes fly in a 3 dimensional space, > and an idea/thought always seems to be in the same "place," like a > 0-dimensional space, which is not a space at all.
Sure, but this just means that intelligence requires a *different* math than aerodynamics... Proof-based software validation, and the theory of the complexity of algorithms, are also based on math --- but not dimensional math... I have little doubt that in 50 years there will be a pretty developed math of AGI, used to refine AGI designs and ideas, much as differential equations are now used to refine aerodynamics ideas (every aerodynamics simulator uses the Navier-Stokes equations for example) .... > But, anyway, mathematics is important to AI. I guess I think there is > a difference between finding AI *in* mathematics, or using mathematics > as a processing physical/computational substrate. I think some > researchers think in the platonic/math realm it is just a matter of > uncovering the hidden intelligence INSIDE math. Need to consider it > more... not that I have a better alternative at the moment, mind > you... Sure... But whether you're a Platonist or not, the equations of physics still have the same empirical validity, right? ;) ... the same will be true of the equations of intelligence once we know them well... For the time being, we're in the early stages of AGI R&D, so we are proceeding via a messy mix of math, science, intuition, experimentation and so forth -- as at the start of any new science/engineering discipline.... And the mix each researcher chooses will depend somewhat on their taste... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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
