Ben,
Well then so is S Kauffman's language unclear. I'll go with his definition in
Chap 12 Reinventing the Sacred [all about algorithms and their impossibility
for solving a whole string of human problems]
"What is an algorithm? The quick definition is an *effective procedure to
calculate a result.' A computer program is an algorithm, and so is long
division."
See his explanation of how he solved the wicked problem of how to hide a
computer cable - "Is there an algorithmic way to bound the frame of the
features of my table, computer, cord, plug and the rest of the universe, such
that I could algorithmically find a solution to my problem? No. But solve it I
did!"
Ben, please listen carefully to the following :). I really suspect that all
the stuff I'm saying and others are writing about wicked problems is going in
one ear and out the other. You hear it and know it, perhaps, but you really
don't register it.
If you did register it, you would know that anyone who deals in psychology with
wicked problems OBJECTS to the IQ test as a test of intelligence - as only
dealing with convergent problem-solving, and not
divergent/wicked/ill-structured problemsolving. It's a major issue. Pei clearly
in the past didn't know much about this area of psychology, and I wonder
whether you really do. (You don't have to know everything - it's not a crime if
you don't - it's just that you would be well advised to familiarise yourself
with it all..).
There is no effective procedure, period, for dealing successfully with wicked,
ill-structured, one-off ("case-by-case") problems. There is for IQ tests and
other examples of narrow AI.
(And what do you think Pei *does* mean?)
Ben:
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 | Modify Your Subscription
--
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 | Modify Your Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
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 | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
