I am still working on SAT and I thought I was getting a little closer to finding an efficient solution using combinatorics, but once again, the application of a little more insight into the strategy I was using showed me that with all the progress I have made in the last few months I am still at the complexity cross-roads. I will probably continue to work on it but I do not expect to make any great discoveries. (I think my current strategy should have some limited effectiveness.)
The problem of an efficient SAT solver is so complicated that I do not see how it could be a function of mind. However, the basis of that argument is so absurd that it not even worthy of disputing. Does the theory that the functions of mind have to be simple really make any sense? Do the processes of the body have to be simple for some reason? The idea that someone in this group might confidently conclude that the processes of the body can be, or even worse –have to be- explained by simple theories is so absurd that it is not worth taking the time to discuss it. So why does my feeling that a theory which is too complicated is probably not a mainstay of the mind seem reasonable? After all, an effective innate SAT solver might, for example, explain something about mathematical savants. The thing is that I do not have complicated SAT-like experiences while thinking. When I am trying to understand something I seem to string ideas together (like I am doing right now) and I usually generate minor variations on familiar explanatory theories that I have thought about many times before. So it is not that a complicated SAT solver can’t explain the underlying principles of the mind just because it is complicated but because it is just not something that is in accord with my experiences. I don’t fully understand how I am able to put ideas together to generate variations on theories that I have considered before, but this form of explanation of what I am doing when I am thinking makes a lot more sense to me than some theory about a SAT solver or a Deep Learning process. I am sure there is some logic going on and I am making numerous unperceived adjustments to derived conclusions to help improve on my ideas but that is not the same as saying that an innate mental polynomial time SAT solver or an innate Deep Learning algorithm is running in the background. So once I revisit what seems to me to be the obvious conclusion that ideas can have effects on other ideas and that this kind of process can be marshalled by some abstract mechanisms of mind I should be able to start to develop effective theories about the mind that seem much more natural. By following through with this kind of analysis I might be able to come up with something that is programmable and clearly related to AGI. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
