Richard, One of the mental practices I learned while trying to save my first marriage (an effort that ultimately failed) was: when criticized, rather than reacting emotionally, to analytically reflect on whether the criticism is valid. If it's valid, then I accept it and evaluate it I should make changes; if not, then I try not to take it personally, as it's just a wrong belief on someone else's part.
Applying this method to your statement > > The below suggestion is a perfect illustration of why I have given up on > the list: it shows that the AGI list has become, basically, just a vehicle > for the promotion of Ben's projects and preferences, while everything (and > everyone) else is gradually being defined as a distraction. > I conclude that this is just an unfounded, incorrect accusation. What I suggested (as a **possibility to be evaluated and discussed**) was to focus the list's attention on **issues related to creating AGI in the near term, conditional on the hypothetical assumption that this is possible**. This does NOT mean I want to focus the list on my own work. Quite the contrary. If any thread gets too particular about OpenCog or OpenCog Prime, I direct it to the OpenCog list. You are not responding to what I said, but rather to a subtext that you inferred was there. But your inference was wrong. Personally -- as a list participant rather than a list owner -- my preference would be for discussions to focus on constructive analysis of various approaches to creating AGI in the near term. Actually I get tired of explaining my own approaches and am really more interested in reading about details of others' approaches. Discussing my own approaches on this list gets tiresome sometimes because it involves repeatedly summarizing in emails things that are already discussed in books, papers and wikis ... but I do so when it seems the best way to answer a question someone poses. However, as list owner, I want to take into account the preferences of the community and not just my own personal preferences -- so if there is wide interest in discussion of topics that don't amuse me much (e.g. repeated discussion of whether quantum-gravity-computing is needed for AGI, whether Turing machines can be conscious, etc.) then I am quite content to have these discussions on the list. I don't need to be personally interested in every discussion that occurs here. I want to stress that I **do** find foundational philosophical discussions worthwhile, and I discuss a lot of such issues in my own writings. I've just noticed that these sorts of discussions seem to be drowning out more concrete AGI discussions lately, and wondered if this is what the community wants. > The so-called 'complex systems problem' perfectly fits the requirements for > being included in the (1) category below: it is about the practical aspects > of building AGIs, and it is backed up by solid argument. > To me, the "complex systems problem" as you define it illustrates the difficulty of actually dividing threads into two categories as I attempted to do. My own feeling was that *part* of the complex-systems-problem thread focused usefully on issues related to alternative approaches to creating AGI. On the other hand, a large part of that thread seemed to me to be dominated by repetitive, uninteresting philosophical discussions centered on your harsh criticisms of other peoples' approaches, your unusual definitions of terms like "complexity" and "emergence" and so forth. Personally, I thought that thread was worthwhile overall, even though most of the particular messages within it were sort of frustrating, due to the emotional tone as much as the contents... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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
