PM, You might be right, but I doubt it. People's intuitions are MUCH too different for them to all run in the same direction, unless someone is paying a LOT of money to "motivate" them to do so.
Steve On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Won't stop the diligent, however network effect will prohibit parallel > development > since most people will follow the leader. Network effect = following the > leader. > > ~PM > > > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:17:26 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [agi] The Top > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
