The attempt to create an objective measure or process for intelligence seems worthwhile, but the problem here is that in making the attempt to eliminate "actions and beliefs" from the modeling of intelligence one is in danger of repeating the serious error of over-simplification as was done, for example, when the behaviorists tried to eliminate "ideas and reasoning" from the study of psychology, or when the proponents of the theories of logic-based artificial intelligence tried to eliminate other methods of reasoning from the scientific retinue on the basis that logic was the only truly scientific form of reasoning available.
The use of a metaphor from the history science is legitimate. However when the metaphor purports to make an overly broad conclusion, especially one that is narrowly focused on a system (mathematical celestial orbital physics) which has yet to show its efficacy in the field of general artificial intelligence, and which the exclusion of other methods of reasoning is presented as if it had emerged from some kind of triumph, you really have to think before you jump. I often argue against things like the simplistic use of Bayesian reasoning. However, when I do make an argument like that, I am not arguing against the value of Bayesian reasoning, but against the narrow simplistic belief that Bayesian reasoning is itself sufficient to explain human level general intelligence. Similarly, I am not against the attempts to create objectives measures and processes for intelligence, but I am definitely opposed to those arguments which make an unsubstantiated claim that a narrow simplistic objective method is going to be sufficient when the evidence supporting that conclusion is seriously lacking and there are numerous good reasons for including other means of reasoning in the design of an AI program. Jim Bromer ----- Original Message ---- From: "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:12:54 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Compression PLUS a fitness function "motoring" for hypothesized compressibility is intelligence? 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/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
