On 1/5/15, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
should read "NOT stop others..." > >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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
