Ben said: Maybe the reason people don't know what you mean, is that your manner of phrasing the issue is so unusual? Could you elaborate the problem you refer to, perhaps using some examples? It's easier to explain how an AGI design would deal with a certain example situation or issue, than how it will address some general, hard-to-disambiguate verbal description of a problem area... -- Ben G -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of the problems that I would describe can be solved by people (using their already existing intelligence) but that does not mean that such problems can be solved by artificial intelligence. That is, you could figure out how your program could solve an individual problem that I might suggest but that does not mean that your program could, in general, solve such problems. (The concept of levels of generalization is one way to initiate understanding how it might be possible that you could explain how your program would, in theory, solve a kind of problem without being able to show that your program could solve that kind of problem in general ). I was saying that most people don't have any idea what I mean when I talk about things like interrelated interactive ideological structures in an ambiguous environment, and that I think this issue is central to the contemporary problem. When you get into arguments about probability vs logic it looks to me as if you don't see the more serious problem (that I am trying to discuss) because when people get into probability vs logic arguments (and other similar arguments) they are usually arguing for a preponderant decision process. If my impression of these discussions is accurate, if the partisan arguments for logic, probability or neural networks and the like are really arguments for choosing one or the other as a preponderant decision process, then it is my opinion that the discussants are missing the major problem. That issue is the way ideas interact. Isn't it true that your advocacy for probabilistic methods is an argument for using probability as a primary decision process? Does my point of view make sense so far? (And if, for some reason, you don't want to continue this discussion that is ok.) Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
