On 1/4/15, 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. > >
The start is usually some kind of gut feeling or intution. That leads to one of the approaches or other you've got listed, and more. The whole problem is how to work out your initial gut feeling and rigourously develop it. Without a working AGI it's impossible to know which is the correct approach, and also more than one approach is possible, different means leading to the same ends: intelligence. But, I think there is no "answer" to the problem, since a judgement is inherently subjective. So even if somebody does come up with a working AGI, it should stop others from working on competing methods, since the judgements of different systems will naturally vary. Mike A > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
