I think all of these have to be present in an AGI program. I mean the text-based system isn't necessary but the other part of # 1 is. The system does not have to parallel the development of a evolution of a primitive control system as was put in # 2 but the AGI program is going to have some systems that could be strongly compared to a control system. I noticed that the one that you preferred, #2 was more abstract than 1 and 3.
Jim Bromer On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Steve Richfield via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was about to respond to Jim's latest thread regarding conceptual > structure, but then I realized that the reason everyone here is talking > at/past each other is that nearly everyone has a different idea as to where > the "top" of this subject is located. First, some prospective examples: > > 1. Some believe that the "top" is an ability to acquire, store, access, > and act on information to provide a text-based interface. > 2. Some believe that the "top" is an ability to self-organize to form an > intelligent system. > 3. Some believe that since intelligence apparently evolved from a > primitive process control system, that paralleling this development might > start with a better understanding of self-organizing process control > systems. > 4. Some believe that in the process of learning how to do MUCH better > compression, that we will learn how to self-organize the process of > processing intelligent communications. > 5. There are almost as many of these as there are members on this forum. > I could easily attach names (including my own) to the above, but I prefer > to avoid having this devolve into an argument as to exactly what the > various members believe. > > OK, so just WHERE IS the real "top"? Can a system be considered to be > "intelligent" without being self-organizing? Can an approach be considered > to be valid without being extensible to ALL of our functions? > > Myself, I think self-organization is essential, and if a system can't even > self-organize to perform simplistic process control, e.g. like a hydra, > then what hope is there to ever be "intelligent" (#3 above)? However, I > seem to be alone in this view, yet I can't fathom how others ever expect > success without these basics. > > I would be interested in seeing crafted replacements or additions to my > above descriptions of various views of the "top", that embody SOME > reasonable rationale as to how they might lead to AGI success. > > Can anyone shine light in this very dark corner? > > Thanks. > > Steve. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <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
