Matthias: a state description could be:....
...I am in a kitchen. The door is open. It has two windows. There is a
sink. And three cupboards. Two chairs. A fly is on
the right window. The sun is shining. The color of the chair is... etc.
etc.....
..........................................................................................................
I think studying the limitations of human intelligence or better to say the
predefined innate knowledge in our algorithms is essential to create that
what you call AGI. Because only with this knowledge you can avoid the
problem of huge state spaces.
You did something v. interesting, which is you started to ground the
discussion about general intelligence. These discussions are normally almost
totally ungrounded as to the SUBJECTS/OBJECTS of intelligence.
Essentially, the underlying perspectives of discussions of GI in this field
are computational and mathematical re the MEDIUM of intelligence. People
basically think along the lines of: how much information can a computer
hold, and how can it manipulate that information? But that - the equivalent
would be something like: how much can a human brain hold and manipulate? -
is not all there is to intelligence.
What is totally missing is a philosophical and semiotic perspective. A
philosopher looks at things v. differently and asks essentially : how much
information can we get about a given subject (and the world generally)? A
semioticist asks: how much and what kinds of information about any given
subject (or the world generally) can different forms of representation give
us? (A verbal description, photo, movie, statue will all give us different
forms of info and show different dimensions of a subject).
The AI-er asks how much information (about the world) can I and my machine
handle? The philosopher: how much information about the world can we
actually *get*? - How knowable is the world? ANd what do we have to do to
get and present knowledge about the world?
If you are truly serious here, I suggest, you have to look at intelligence
from both perspectives.
You took a kitchen as a possible subject to ground the discussion. Why not
take something easier to
think about - to consider the difficulties of getting to know the world - a
human being. Take one at random:
http://lifeboat.com/board/ben.goertzel.jpg
What does anyone, any society or any intelligence need to be a)
intelligent - to - ultimately b) omniscient about this man?
How many disciplines of knowledge studying how many LEVELS OF THE SUBJECT -
levels of this man and his body, behaviour and relationships do we need to
bring
in? Presumably we need somewhere between something and everything our
culture has to offer - every branch of science - psychology, social
psychology, biopsychology, social anthropology, behavioural economics,
cognitive science, neuroscience, down to cardiology, gastroenterology,
immunology ... down to biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics - focussing
on every part of his behaviour, and every part or subsystem of his body.
(Would you want a total systems science view which would attempt to
integrate all their views into one totally inegrated model of the man? Our
culture doesn't offer such a thing only a piecemeal view, but maybe you'd
like to attempt one?)
And those are just the generalists. Then we really ought to bring in
somewhere between some
and all kinds of the arts - they specialise in individual portraits.
Novelists, painters, sculptors, moviemakers, cartoonists etc. A Scorsese at
least to do justice to his titanic struggles. They can all show us different
of dimensions of this man.
Which brings us to HOW MANY KINDS OF REPRESENTATIONS OF A SUBJECT.. do we
need to form a comprehensive representation of the man -
textual, references on Google, mathematicial, photographic, drawing,
cartoon, movies,
statues, 3-d molecular models, holograms, tax returns, bank statements
how many scientific representations - mammogram, cardiogram, urine samples,
skin samples, biopsies, blood tests...
And then how much PERSONAL INTERACTION WITH THE SUBJECT is needed. Should
you have interviewed, worked with him, partied with him, had sex with
im? - And the SUBJECT'S RELATIONS ... should you know his family, friends
etc.?
How extensive REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SUBJECT'S ENVIRONMENT... his home,
office, car, beat-up chair, clothes etc...local neighbourhood, town, etc..
And what DEGREE OF EMBODIMENT should you, the knower, - or your computer -
have? Because, obviously, you can only identify with any given subject to
the extent that you have a similar/the same body. Hence philosophy's "what's
it like to be a bat?" and "how can you know *my* qualia?" obsessions. Even
God, according to some religions, had to become flesh to know humans.
Ultimately, I suggest, PERFECTION ...near godlike knowledge and intelligence
would involve having a PERFECT REPLICA OF THE SUBJECT AND HIS ENVIRONMENT...
with total powers of investigation and vision - the ability to look inside
any part of his body or head or personal world and find out just what was
going on.
Everything short of that, should be considered as DEGREES OF INTELLIGENCE...
perhaps degrees of reality.
Once you think like this - philosophically - you become more realistic
about the problems of developing intelligence of any kind. Now my experience
is that AGI-ers won't do this, because they're only prepared to think within
the disciplines they're familiar and comfortable with - computational and
mathematical, mainly. But if you're truly interested in general
intelligence, you can't be culturally insular - that should actually be
regarded as a cardinal sin - you have to have an overview of our culture,
all forms of human intelligence, and the world at large, as well as
computers - the "to-be-known" as well as the "means-of-knowing".
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
