I don't really have any argument with this, except possibly quibbles about the nuances of the difference between "empirical" and "empiricism" -- and I don't really care about those!
On Friday 30 May 2008 05:04:58 am, Tudor Boloni wrote: > The key point was lost, here is a clearer way of saying it. > > Kepler's experience (his empirical work and experimentation with all his > equipment) IS NOT what helped him DISCOVER properties of gravity (equal > times for equal areas) (we can agree no one Invented it, though Newton > generalized Kepler's insights). He had an INSIGHT separate from his possible > SENSORY past or SENSORY future. In the words of Einstein in a speech on > Kepler given on Kepler's 300th anniversary of his death: > > "One can never see where a planet really is at any given moment, but only in > what direction it can be seen just then from the Earth, which is itself > moving in an unknown manner around the Sun. The difficulties thus seemed > practically unsurmountable [by empirical means]. > Kepler had to discover a way of bringing order into this chaos." The > breakthrough was Kepler's Universal Mathematical Physics as he defined it, > and NOT physical empirical cosmology (which he specifically REJECTS in his > attack on Aristotle's SENSORY based beliefs). > > So what created this peak of human INSIGHT if compression of experienced > patterns was not enough? He did "trade one theory for another" but we call > that thinking, and he didn't use empiricism to do it, he hypothesized new > patterns and compressed them until they could not be disproved > empirically... (this is a major difference from how modern science in > executed, where most researchers actually give way, way too much worth to > new theories arising from their experimental results, instead of simply > removing theories that are negated by the same experiments and leaving their > belief spaces open) > > By bringing an agent's "actions" and "beliefs" of future optimized > experiences into the discussion of intelligence, i believe you are limiting > the agent to human stupidity and going down the same weak path as nature. > True intelligence would be infinitely more humble in what it would declare > as knowledge, it would only really know what it doesn't know. Intelligence > gradients would be products of compression algorithm efficiency, and > available workspace resources for the permutations of past concept patterns. > > to paraphrase Nietzsche "pointing to a picture of yourself and exclaiming > ecce homo " says more about you than man, the same for intelligence, human > intelligence is limited by our mind blindness resulting from empiricism and > reliance on the senses, AGIs dont need to be that dumb > > t > > > ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
