On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > In any case, this whole conversation bothers me. It seems like we're > focussing on the wrong problems; like using the Theory of Relativity to > decide on an appropriate speed limit for cars in school zones. If it could > take 1,000 years of thought and creativity to go from BB(n) to BB(n+1) for > some n, we're talking about problems of an incredible scale, far beyond what > most of us have in mind for our first prototypes. A challenge with the busy > beaver problem is that when n becomes big enough, you start being able to > encode long-standing and very difficult mathematical conjectures. > > -Ben
My point is simply that an AGI should be able to think about such concepts, like we do. It doesn't need to solve them. In this sense I think it is a fundamental concern: how is it possible to have a form of knowledge representation that can in principle capture all ideas a human might express? Intuition suggests that there should be a simple sufficient representation, like 1st-order logic. But 1st-order logic isn't enough, and neither are 2nd-order logics, 3rd order... ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
