On 18/11/2007, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I might be getting confused - or rather, I am quite consciously bearing > that in mind. Let me just say then: I have not heard a *creative* new idea > here that directly addresses and shows the power to solve even in part the > problem of creating general intelligence.
I do not get the impression that most promising ideas have even been explored, much less worked over to the point of abandonment. I don't see people saying "oh yeah, well we already tried that, and it didn't work". Instead, I see people saying "gee I have a good idea, I wish I could explore it." So, you can say "I don't beleive it", but you can't say "it won't work", until multiple research groups have actually tried it, and shown that its a dead end. --linas phasis > on the "creative" part. It's not enough to be new and different, or to > have > an incredibly detailed plan, you have to have ideas that directly address > & > start to solve the problem and are radical. I have heard a great deal > though from various sources about how it's *not* necessary to be that > creative or revolutionary - about how just adapting existing techniques > will > lead to the promised land - which, frankly, is a joke. > > The only discussion here that I can remember even starting to suggest a > creative idea directly addressing the problem was with Ben - he claims > that > his pet is capable of general analogy - certainly one if not the basis of > general intelligence - that, having learned to fetch a ball, his pet > spontaneously learned to play hide-and-seek. Great, I said, if you can > demonstrate that, you've got a major creative breakthrough - you can and > should go public right now. You can bet Hawkins would. No reply. No > exposition of his idea for producing such analogies. No comments or > interest from anyone else. > > There are a lot of discussions here about *tangential* matters - but when > it > comes to the central problem(s) - the hard, creative problem - how does > you > agent move into *new* domains? - discussion evaporates. > > And I was glad to see Bob expressing something I have often thought - how > often people in this field *gesture* at ideas, which are too awesome to be > declared publicly. Now that might be partly justified in other creative > fields. In many fields of invention, a creative idea about, say, using > some > new material or preparing it in a new way might, if expressed, be > immediately stolen. But not here. Here any creative idea will be totally > dependent on a massive amount of implementation. Hawkins had a fairly big > creative idea with his HTM - even if it's a flawed idea. But no one can > walk > away and immediately implement such an idea. > > So actually, in this field, it's in your and everyone's interest to > declare > your main ideas publicly and get as much feedback as pos. - and incentive > and opportunity to refine those ideas. (By all means, BTW point to a > creative idea of yours that directly addresses the problem of creating > general intelligence - or to anyone else's). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=68365365-babd74
