Thanks Jim. That was a good read that got me thinking. What if probability graphs/nets were seamlessly integrated with computation arithmetic via a reliable translation or deabstraction schema? Meaning, each already have their own models. Within computer science, are they mutually exclusive, or is it more of a case where the work has simply not been done yet? Was fuzzy logic not aiming for such a model?
________________________________ From: Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> Sent: 09 April 2017 07:35 PM To: AGI Subject: [agi] I Still Do Not Believe That Probability Is a Good Basis for AGI I still do not believe that probability nets or probability graphs represent the best basis for AGI. The advances that have been made with probability nets can be explained by pointing out that it makes sense that (relatively) large numbers of groups using more crude methods (that are shown to have some effectiveness) will be likely to produce early advances. When Spock announces the probability evaluation of some estimate that he has made of a future occurrence it is humorous to many fans of Star Trek just because it is such an absurd ability for a human to make use of. Certain mathematicians (and savants) can make extraordinary calculations but there is little evidence that they are using these calculations in their sound everyday reasoning. I have pointed out that addition and multiplication using n-ary base number systems were extraordinary achievements. Computers were designed to do arithmetic. So if your AI programming can effectively exploit the leverage that computational arithmetic enjoys then you should be able to make some advances in the field. Although logical reasoning can be formed using computational arithmetic, there is something clearly missing in the field The p vs np problem illustrates this. However, I do not think that a solution of p=np is necessary for important and significant advances to be made in computational logic. There have been times when advances in logic were made even though p=np was not achieved. For example, some advances were made in the 1990s using probability relations. (My guess is that the more significant advances were looking at special cases.) This does not mean that I think the probability must be the basis for innovations in logic. I believe that the distinctions between different methods of abstraction will be necessary to make truly significant advances in AGI. I compare this issue to be similar to the problem that Cauchy solved by being, " ...one of the first to state and prove theorems of calculus rigorously, rejecting the heuristic principle of the generality of algebra of earlier authors." (quote taken from Wikipedia). I am not imagining myself to be a AGI-Abstraction Cauchy and I am not saying that AGI theory has to be stated and proved using rigorous theorems. I just think that the logic of abstraction has to be more clearly defined. AGI | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpgecd5649.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.pngecd5649.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] <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
