Colin, There's a difference between
1) Discussing in detail how you're going to build a non-digital-computer based AGI 2) Presenting general, hand-wavy theoretical ideas as to why digital-computer-based AGI can't work I would be vastly more interested in 1 than 2 ... and I suspect many others on the list feel similarly... -- Ben G On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben said, somewhere in the blizzard.... > > I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list. > > It seems to me there are two types of conversations here: > > 1) > Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current > computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by > moderately-sized groups of people > > 2) > Discussions about whether the above is even possible -- or whether it is > impossible because of weird physics, or poorly-defined special > characteristics of human creativity, or the so-called "complex systems > problem", or because AGI intrinsically requires billions of people and > quadrillions of dollars, or whateve > > > > Personally I am pretty bored with all the conversations of type 2 > > It's not that I consider them useless discussions in a grand sense ... > certainly, they are valid topics for intellectual inquiry. > > But, to do anything real, you have to make **some** decisions about what > approach to take, and I've decided long ago to take an approach of trying to > engineer an AGI system. > > Now, if someone had a solid argument as to why engineering an AGI system is > impossible, that would be important. But that never seems to be the case. > Rather, what we hear are long discussions of peoples' intuitions and > opinions in this regard. People are welcome to their own intuitions and > opinions, but I get really bored scanning through all these intuitions about > why AGI is impossible. > > One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically on > **how to make AGI work**. > > If this re-focusing were done, then philosophical arguments about the > impossibility of engineering AGI in the near term would be judged **off > topic** by definition of the list purpose. > > Potentially, there could be another list, something like "agi-philosophy", > devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about > whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like running > that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it very > often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the in-principle > possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical > arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. > > One fear I have is that people who are actually interested in building AGI, > could be scared away from this list because of the large volume of anti-AGI > philosophical discussion. Which, I add, almost never has any new content, > and mainly just repeats well-known anti-AGI arguments (Penrose-like physics > arguments ... "mind is too complex to engineer, it has to be evolved" ... > "no one has built an AGI yet therefore it will never be done" ... etc.) > > What are your thoughts on this? > > -- Ben > > > > > I think it's rather obvious I'm an AGI builder. > > Anyone who has a hardware solution (even though mine can be classed as a > kind of analogue 'computer' if you broaden your definition of 'symbol' and > 'rule'/'algorithm'), not based on existing computer architecture, is > excluded from 1) and 2).... It appears that by definition "to build a > NON-computer-based AGI solution is not building an AGI"! Discussing > non-traditional hardware solutions is NOT philosophy in the same way that > discussion empirical neuroscience, biophysics and cognitive architecture is > not philosophy. > > Is the entire list sure that they want (1)? I can't tell yet. You be the > judge. > > However, if (1) what is required here then fine. I'd be confined to the (1) > list anyway. I wouldn't bother with (2) as I get that in bucketloads > elsewhere anyway. I'd rather keep in touch with as diverse a group as > possible who are actually doing real physical AGI...From a purely selfish > point of view I need lots of COMP solutions to keep coming thick and fast - > they are one of the controls for my future experiments. *So I am > encouraging (1) style solutions*, albeit constructed with eyes *scientifically > wide open*. A myopic (1) ish forum, for me, will represent intermittent > small dialogs between those few in the forum with a broader, > multidisciplinary approach, still interested in the (1) approach, like me, > that pop up from time to time. > > On that $0.02 I'll leave you to it...time for coffee! > > cheers, > colin > ------------------------------ > *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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
