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
