PS., disregard the first paragraph... reread your statement and I skimmed over it a bit fast, not catching your meaning :)
On 11/12/14, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, physics, now here is where I would get tangled up. It sounds > like if one says physics has the "same empirical validity"... to > thought? a statement like that sounds like Newton's law's would hold > within intelligence. I don't think you implied that literally. Not > trying to attribute that statement to you. > > But, I think some people do not account at all for the difference > between physics and thought. I would call into doubt these "geometry > of the mind methods." It's fine if it works, but what evidence is > there to assert that what is true in the extended physical world, of > which Newtonian physics applies at the macro level, as well as things > like ordinary geometry, are going to transfer over to something akin > to thinking? > > And, the answer to that, I think from your perspective, is that we are > still looking for as yet undiscovered equations of intelligence, which > would not wholesale copy 3 dimensional math, but would be something > new, like a 0-dimensional math (which I've read about but don't > understand). > > Mike A > > On 11/12/14, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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
