Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
So long as the general response to the complex systems problem is not "This
could be a serious issue, let's put our heads together to investigate it",
but "My gut feeling is that this is just not going to be a problem", or
"Quit rocking the boat!", you can bet that nobody really wants to ask any
questions about whether the approaches are correct, they just want to be
left alone to get on with their approaches.
Both Ed Porter and myself have given serious thought to the "complex systems
problem" as you call it, and have discussed it with you at length. I
also read the
only formal paper you sent me dealing with it (albeit somewhat
indirectly) and also
your various online discourses on the topic.
Ed and I don't agree with you on the topic, but not because of lack of thinking
or attention.
Your argument FOR the existence of a "complex systems problem" with Novamente
or OpenCog, is not any more rigorous than our argument AGAINST it.
Oh, mere rhetoric.
You have never given an argument "against" it. If you believe this is
not correct, perhaps you could jog my memory by giving a brief summary
of what you think is the argument against it?
In all of my discussions with you on the subject, you have introduced
many red herrings, and we have discussed many topics that turned out to
be just misunderstandings, but you have never addressed the actual core
argument itself.
In fact, IIRC, on the one occasion that I persisted in trying to bring
the discussion back to the core issue, you finally made only one
argument against my core claim .... your argument against it was "I just
don't think it is going to be a problem."
The argument itself is extremely rigorous: on all the occasions on
which someone has disputed the rigorousness of the argument, they have
either addressed some other issue entirely or they have just waved their
hands without showing any sign of understanding the argument, and then
said "... it's not rigorous!". It is almost comical to go back over the
various responses to the argument: not only do people go flying off in
all sorts of bizarre directions, but they also get quite strenuous about
it at the same time.
Not understanding an argument is not the same as the argument not being
rigorous.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
