Mike Tintner wrote:
Charles: as far as I can tell ALL modes of human thought
only operate within restricted domains.
I literally can't conceive where you got this idea from :). Writing an
essay - about, say, the French Revolution, future of AGI, flaws in
Hamlet, what you did in the zoo, or any of the other many subject
areas of the curriculum - which accounts for, at a very rough
estimate, some 50% of problemsolving within education, operates within
*which* restricted domain? (And how *did* you arrive at the above idea?)
Yes, I think of those as being handled largely by specialized,
non-general, mechanisms. I suppose that to an extent you could say that
it's done via pattern matching, and to that extent it falls under the
same model that I've called experimentation. Mainly, though, that's
done with specialized "language manipulation" routines. (I'm not
asserting that they are hard-wired. They were built up via lots of time
and effort put in via both experimentation and mathematics [in which I
include "modeling" and "statistical prediction"]).
Mathematics and experimentation are extremely broad brushes. That's a
part of why they are so slow.
French revolution: Learning your history from a teacher or a text isn't
a general pattern. It's a short-cut that usually works pretty well.
Now if you were talking about going on the ground and doing personal
research...then it might count as "general intelligence" under the
category of experimentation. (Note that both mathematics and
experimentation are generally necessary to creat new knowledge, rather
that copying knowledge from some source that has previously acquired and
processed it.)
Future of AGI: Creating the future of AGI does, indeed, involve general
intelligence. If you follow this list you'll
note that it involves BOTH mathematics and experimentation.
Flaws in Hamlet: I don't think of this as involving general
intelligence. Specialized intelligence, yes, but if you see general
intelligence at work there you'll need to be more explicit for me to
understand what you mean. Now determining whether a particular
deviation from iambic pentameter was a flaw would require a deep human
intelligence, but I don't feel that understanding of how human emotions
are structured is a part of general intelligence except on a very
strongly superhuman level. The level where the AI's theory of your mind
was on a par with, or better than, your own.
-------------------------------------------
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
