Your language is unclear Could you define precisely what you mean by an "algorithm"
Also, could you give an example of a computer program, that can be run on a digital computer, that is not does not embody an "algorithm" according to your definition? thx ben On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben, > > Ah well, then I'm confused. And you may be right - I would just like > clarification. > > You see, what you have just said is consistent with my understanding of > Pei up till now. He explicitly called his approach in the past > "nonalgorithmic" while acknowledging that others wouldn't consider it so. It > was only nonalgorithmic in the sense that the "algortihm" or problemsolving > procedure had the potential to keep changing every time - but there was > still (as I think we'd both agree) a definite procedure/algorithm each time. > > This current paper seems to represent a significant departure from that. > There doesn't seem to be an algorithm or procedure to start with, and it > does seem to represent a challenge to your conception of AGI design. But I > may have misunderstood (which is easy if there are no examples :) ) - and > perhaps you or, better still, Pei, would care to clarify. > > > Ben: > > A key point IMO is that: problem-solving that is non-algorithmic (in Pei's > sense) at one level (the level of the particular problem being solved) may > still be algorithmic at a different level (for instance, NARS itself is a > set of algorithms). > > So, to me, calling NARS problem-solving non-algorithmic is a bit odd... > though not incorrect according to the definitions Pei lays out... > > AGI design then **is** about designing algorithms (such as the NARS > algorithms) that enable an AI system to solve problems in both algorithmic > and non-algorithmic ways... > > ben > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> I'm only saying that CPS seems to be loosely equivalent to wicked, >> ill-structured problem-solving, (the reference to convergent/divergent (or >> crystallised vs fluid) etc is merely to point out a common distinction in >> psychology between two kinds of intelligence that Pei wasn't aware of in the >> past - which is actually loosely equivalent to the distinction between >> narrow AI and general AI problemsolving). >> >> In the end, what Pei is/isn't aware of in terms of general knowledge, >> doesn't matter much - don't you think that his attempt to do without >> algorithms IS v. important? And don't you think any such attempt would be >> better off referring explicitly to the literature on wicked, ill-structured >> problems? >> >> I don't think that pointing all this out is silly - this (a >> non-algorithmic approach to CPS/wicked/whatever) is by far the most >> important thing currently being discussed here - and potentially, if >> properly developed, revolutionary.. Worth getting excited about, no? >> >> (It would also be helpful BTW to discuss the "wicked" literature because >> it actually has abundant examples of wicked problems - and those, you must >> admit, are rather hard to come by here ). >> >> >> Ben: TITLE: Case-by-case Problem Solving (draft) >> >> AUTHOR: Pei Wang >> >> >> .... >> >>> >>> But you seem to be reinventing the term for wheel. There is an extensive >>> literature, including AI stuff, on "wicked, ill-structured" problems, (and >>> even "nonprogrammed decisionmaking" which won't, I suggest, be replaced by >>> "case-by-case PS". These are well-established terms. You similarly seemed >>> to be unaware of the v. common distinction between convergent & divergent >>> problem-solving. >> >> >> >> Mike, I have to say I find this mode of discussion fairly silly.. >> >> Pei has a rather comprehensive knowledge of AI and a strong knowledge of >> cog-sci as well. It is obviously not the case that he is unaware of these >> terms and ideas you are referring to. >> >> Obviously, what he means by "case-by-case problem solving" is NOT the same >> as "nonprogrammed decisionmaking" nor "divergent problem-solving." >> >> In his paper, he is presenting a point of view, not seeking to compare >> this point of view to the whole corpus of literature and ideas that he has >> absorbed during his lifetime. >> >> I happen not to fully agree with Pei's thinking on these topics (though I >> like much of it), but I know Pei well enough to know that those. places >> where his thinking diverges from mine, are *not* due to ignorance of the >> literature on his part... >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <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 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
