But, we don't need to be able to predict the thoughts of an AGI system in detail, to be able to architect an AGI system that has thoughts...
I agree that predicting the thoughts of an AGI system in detail is going to be pragmatically impossible ... but I don't agree that predicting **which** AGI designs can lead to the emergent properties corresponding to general intelligence, is pragmatically impossible to do in an analytical and rational way ... Similarly, I could engineer an artificial weather system displaying hurricanes, whirlpools, or whatever phenomena you ask me for -- based on my general understanding of the Navier-stokes equation. Even though I could not, then, predict the specific dynamics of those hurricanes, whirlpools, etc. We lack the equivalent of the Navier-stokes equation for thoughts. But we can still arrive at reasonable analytic understandings of appropriately constrained and formalised AGI designs, with the power to achieve general intelligence... ben g On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > I don't think the flaw you have identified matters to the main thrust of > Richard's argument - and if you haven't summarized Richard's position > precisely, you have summarized mine. :-] > > You're saying the flaw in that position is that prediction of complex > networks might merely be a matter of computational difficulty, rather than > fundamentally intractability. But any formally defined complex system is > going to be computable in principle. We can always predict such a system with > infinite computing power. That doesn't make it tractable, or open to > understanding, because obviously real understanding can't be dependent > infinite computing power. > > The question of fundamental intractability comes down to the degree with > which we can make predictions about the global level from the local. And > let's hope there's progress to be made there because each discovery will make > our lives easier, to those of us who would try to understand something like > the brain or the body or even just the cell. Or even just folding proteins! > > But it seems pretty obvious to me anyway that we will never be able to > predict the weather with any precision without doing an awful lot of > computation. > > And what is our mind but the weather in our brains? > > Terren > > --- On Sun, 6/29/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE >> IN AGI >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >> Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 10:44 PM >> Richard, >> >> I think that it would be possible to formalize your >> "complex systems argument" >> mathematically, but I don't have time to do so right >> now. >> >> > Or, then again ..... perhaps I am wrong: maybe you >> really *cannot* >> > understand anything except math? >> >> It's not the case that I can only understand math -- >> however, I have a >> lot of respect >> for the power of math to clarify disagreements. Without >> math, arguments often >> proceed in a confused way because different people are >> defining terms >> differently,a >> and don't realize it. >> >> But, I agree math is not the only kind of rigor. I would >> be happy >> with a very careful, >> systematic exposition of your argument along the lines of >> Spinoza or the early >> Wittgenstein. Their arguments were not mathematical, but >> were very rigorous >> and precisely drawn -- not slippery. >> >> > Perhaps you have no idea what the actual >> > argument is, and that has been the problem all along? >> I notice that you >> > avoided answering my request that you summarize your >> argument "against" the >> > complex systems problem ... perhaps you are just >> confused about what the >> > argument actually is, and have been confused right >> from the beginning? >> >> In a nutshell, it seems you are arguing that general >> intelligence is >> fundamentally founded >> on emergent properties of complex systems, and that >> it's not possible for us to >> figure out analytically how these emergent properties >> emerge from the >> lower-level structures >> and dynamics of the complex systems involved. Evolution, >> you >> suggest, "figured out" >> some complex systems that give rise to the appropriate >> emergent >> properties to produce >> general intelligence. But evolution did not do this >> figuring-out in >> an analytical way, rather >> via its own special sort of "directed trial and >> error." You suggest >> that to create a generally >> intelligent system, we should create a software framework >> that makes >> it very easy to >> experiment with different sorts of complex systems, so >> that we can >> then figure out >> (via some combination of experiment, analysis, intuition, >> theory, >> etc.) how to create a >> complex system that gives rise to the emergent properties >> associated >> with general >> intelligence. >> >> I'm sure the above is not exactly how you'd phrase >> your argument -- >> and it doesn't >> capture all the nuances -- but I was trying to give a >> compact and approximate >> formulation. If you'd like to give an alternative, >> equally compact >> formulation, that >> would be great. >> >> I think the flaw of your argument lies in your definition >> of >> "complexity", and that this >> would be revealed if you formalized your argument more >> fully. I think >> you define >> complexity as a kind of "fundamental >> irreducibility" that the human >> brain does not possess, >> and that engineered AGI systems need not possess. I think >> that real >> systems display >> complexity which makes it **computationally difficult** to >> explain >> their emergent properties >> in terms of their lower-level structures and dynamics, but >> not as >> fundamentally intractable >> as you presume. >> >> But because you don't formalize your notion of >> complexity adequately, >> it's not possible >> to engage you in rational argumentation regarding the deep >> flaw at the >> center of your >> argument. >> >> However, I cannot prove rigorously that the brain is NOT >> complex in >> the overly strong >> sense you allude it is ... and nor can I prove rigorously >> that a >> design like Novamente Cognition >> Engine or OpenCog Prime will give rise to the emergent >> properties >> associated with >> general intelligence. So, in this sense, I don't have >> a rigorous >> refutation of your argument, >> and nor would I if you rigorously formalized your argument. >> >> However, I think a rigorous formulation of your argument >> would make it >> apparent to >> nearly everyone reading it that your definition of >> complexity is >> unreasonably strong. >> >> -- Ben G >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- 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
