Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it all
simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about whether
*incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about scientific theories, then basically we're talking in
most cases about detective theories, about theories of whodunit or whatdunit.
If you've got an incomplete theory about who committed a murder, because you
don't have enough evidence, or enough of a motive - do you want criticism? In
general, you'd be pretty foolish not to seek it. Others may point out evidence
you've missed, or other motives, or suggest still better suspects.
If we're talking about inventions, then we're talking about tools/ machines/
engines etc designed to produce certain effects. If you've got an incomplete
machine, it doesn't achieve the effect as desired. It isn't as efficient or as
effective as you want. Should you seek criticism? In general, you'd still be
pretty foolish not to. Others may point out improved ways of designing or
moving your machine parts, or of arranging the objects-to-be-moved.
And if nothing else the simple act of presenting your ideas to others allows
you to use them as sounding-boards - you get to hear your ideas with a clarity
that is difficult to achieve alone, and become more aware of their
deficiiencies - and more motivated to solve them.
The difficulty with AGI is that we're dealing not with machines or software
that are incomplete but simply non-functioning - with essentially narrow AI
systems that haven't shown any capacity for general intelligence and
problemsolving - with machines that want to be airplanes, but are actually
motorbikes, and have never taken off, or shown any ability to get off the
ground for even a few seconds. As a result, you have a whole culture where
people are happy to tell you how their machine works - the kind of engine or in
this case software that they're using - but not happy to tell you what their
machine does - what specific problems it addresses - because that will
highlight their complete failure so far.
Is that sensible? If you want to preserve your dignity, yes. Acknowledging
failure is v. painful and humiliating. Plus, in this case, there's the v.
serious possbility that you're building totally the wrong machine a motorbike
that will never be a plane, (or a narrow plane that will never be a general
bird) - or in this case, software that simply doesn't and can't address the
right problems at all. If you actually want to get somewhere, though, and not
remain trapped in errors, then not presenting and highlighting what your
machine does (and how it fails) is also foolish.
Colin:
The process of formulation of scientific theories has been characterised as a
dynamical system nicely by Nicholas Rescher.
Rescher, N., Process philosophy : a survey of basic issues, University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2000, p. 144.
Rescher, N., Nature and understanding : the metaphysics and method of
science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. ix, 186.
In that approach you can see critical argument operating operating as a brain
process - competing brain electrodynamics that stabilises on the temporary
'winner', whose position may be toppled at any moment by the emergence of a
more powerful criticism which destabilises the current equilibrium...and so on.
The 'argument' may involve the provision of empirical evidence ... indeed that
is the norm for most sciences.
In order that a discipline be seen to be real science, then, what one would
expect to see such processes happening in a dialog between a diversity of views
competing for ownership of scientific evidence through support for whatever
theoretical framework seems apt. As a recent entrant here, and seeing the
dialog and the issues as they unfold I would have some difficulty classifying
what is going on as 'scientific' in the sense that there is no debate
calibrated against any overt fundamental scientific theoretical framework(s),
nor defined testing protocols.
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary question. A
forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real AGI as a target, one
would expect that forum to a multidisciplianry approach on many fronts, all
competing scientifically for access to real AGI.
I am not seeing that here. In having a completely different approach to AGI,
I hope I can contribute to the diversity of ideas and bring the discourse
closer to that of a solid scientific discipline, with formal testing metrics
and so forth. I hope that I can attract the attention of the neuroscience and
physics world to this area.
Of course whether I'm an intransigent grumpy theory-zealot of the Newtonian
kind... well... just let the ideas speak for themselves... :-) The main thing
is the diversity of ideas and criticism .. which seems a little impoverished at
the moment. Without the diversity of approaches actively seen to compete, an
AGI forum will end up marginalised as a club of some kind: "We do (what we
assume will be) AGI by fiddling about with XYZ". This is scientific suicide.
Here's a start:: the latest survey in the key area. Like it or not AGI is
directly in the running for solving the 'hard problem' and machine
consciousness is where the game is at.
Gamez, D. 'Progress in machine consciousness', Consciousness and Cognition
vol. 17, no. 3, 2008. 887-910.
I'll do my best to diversify the discourse... I'd like to see this community
originate real AGI and be seen as real science. To do that this forum should
attract cognitive scientists, psychologists, physicists, engineers,
neuroscientists. Over time, maybe we can get that sort of diversity happening.
I have enthusiasm for such things..
cheers
colin hales
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
