This is basically the suggestion to move to a forum-type format instead of a mailing list.... It has its plusses and minuses... you've cited one of the plusses.
ben On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben, > > Hey, maybe I FINALLY got your "frame of mind" here. Just to test this, > consider: > > Suppose we change the format NOT to exclude anything at all, but rather > I/you/we set up a Wiki that includes EVERYTHING. Right next to a technical > details may be a link to a philosophical point, and right next to a > philosophical point may be a link to a technical detail. Then, on this > forum, people would only post pointers to new edits and information that > they EXPECT would disappear into the bit bucket by tomorrow. > > We would include identified "buzz phrases" to be able to pull important but > disjoint things together, as I have been using the buzz phrase "Ben's list" > with my various distilled "philosophical" (read that "feasibility") points. > > This way, everything ever related to a given subject would be pulled > together and organized. I would be happier because the feasibility issues > would all be together for anyone entering AGI to consider, and you would be > happier because your technical section would be undisturbed by > "philosophical" discussion, except for a few hyperlinks sprinkled therein. > > Does this work for everyone? > > Steve Richfield > ================= > On 10/20/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Just to clarify one point: I am not opposed to philosophy, nor do I >> consider it irrelevant to AGI. I wrote a book on my own philosophy of mind >> in 2006. >> >> I just feel like the philosophical discussions tend to overwhelm the >> pragmatic discussions on this list, and that a greater number of pragmatic >> discussions **might** emerge if the pragmatic and philosophical discussions >> were carried out in separate venues. >> >> Some of us feel we already have adequate philosophical understanding to >> design and engineer AGI systems. We may be wrong, but that doesn't mean we >> should spend our time debating our philosophical understandings, to the >> exclusion of discussing the details of our concrete AGI work. >> >> For me, after enough discussion of the same philosophical issue, I stop >> learning anything. Most of the philosophical discussions on this list are >> nearly identical in content to discussions I had with others 20 years ago. >> I learned a lot from the discussions then, and learn a lot less from the >> repeats... >> >> -- Ben >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Vlad:Good philosophy is necessary for AI...We need to work more on the >>> foundations, to understand whether we are >>> going in the right direction >>> >>> >>> More or less perfectly said. While I can see that a majority of people >>> here don't want it, actually philosophy, (which should be scientifically >>> based), is essential for AGI, precisely as Vlad says - to decide what are >>> the proper directions and targets for AGI. What is creativity? Intelligence? >>> What are the kinds of problems an AGI should be dealing with? What kind(s) >>> of knowledge representation are necessary? Is language necessary? What forms >>> should concepts take? What kinds of information structures, eg networks, >>> should underlie them? What kind(s) of search are necessary? How do analogy >>> and metaphor work? Is embodiment necessary? etc etc. These are all matters >>> for what is actually philosophical as well as scientific as well as >>> technological/engineering discussion. They tend to be often more >>> philosophical in practice because these areas are so vast that they can't be >>> neatly covered - or not at present - by any scientific. >>> experimentally-backed theory. >>> >>> If your philosophy is all wrong, then the chances are v. high that your >>> engineering work will be a complete waste of time. So it's worth considering >>> whether your personal AGI philosophy and direction are viable. >>> >>> And that is essentially what the philosophical discussions here have all >>> been about - the proper *direction* for AGI efforts to take. Ben has >>> mischaracterised these discussions. No one - certainly not me - is objecting >>> to the *feasibility* of AGI. Everyone agrees that AGI in one form or other >>> is indeed feasible, though some (and increasingly though by no means fully, >>> Ben himself) incline to robotic AGI. The arguments are mainly about >>> direction, not feasibility. >>> >>> (There is a separate, philosophical discussion, about feasibility in a >>> different sense - the lack of a culture of feasibility, which is perhaps, >>> subconsciously what Ben was also referring to - no one, but no one, in >>> AGI, including Ben, seems willing to expose their AGI ideas and proposals >>> to any kind of feasibility discussion at all - i.e. how can this or that >>> method solve any of the problem of general intelligence? This is what Steve >>> R has pointed to recently, albeit IMO in a rather confusing way. ) >>> >>> So while I recognize that a lot of people have an antipathy to my >>> personal philosoophising, one way or another, you can't really avoid >>> philosophising, unless you are, say, totally committed to just one approach, >>> like Opencog. And even then... >>> >>> P.S. Philosophy is always a matter of (conflicting) opinion. (Especially, >>> given last night's exchange, philosophy of science itself). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 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/?&; >>> Powered by Listbox: 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------ > *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
