>> However, the point I took issue with was your claim that a stupid person
>> could be taught to effectively do science ... or (your later modification)
>> evaluation of scientific results.
>> At the time I originally took exception to your claim, I had not read the
>> earlier portion of the thread, and I still haven't; so I still do not know
>> why you made the claim in the first place.
In brief --> You've agreed that even a stupid person is a general intelligence.
By "do science", I (originally and still) meant the amalgamation that is
probably best expressed as a combination of critical thinking and/or the
scientific method. My point was a combination of both a) to be a general
intelligence, you really must have a domain model and the rudiments of critical
thinking/scientific methodology in order to be able to competently/effectively
update it and b) if you're a general intelligence, even if you don't need it,
you should be able to be taught the rudiments of critical thinking/scientific
methodology.
Are those points that you would agree with? (A serious question -- and, in
particular, if you don't agree, I'd be very interested in why since I'm trying
to arrive at a reasonable set of distinctions that define a general
intelligence).
In typical list fashion, rather than asking what I meant (or, in your case,
even having the courtesy to read what came before -- so that you might have
*some* chance of understanding what I was trying to get at -- in case my
immediate/proximate phrasing was as awkward as I'll freely admit that it was
;-), it effectively turned into an argument past each other when your immediate
concept/interpretation of *science = advanced statistical interpretation* hit
the blindingly obvious shoals of it's not easy teaching stupid people
complicated things (I mean -- seriously, dude --do you *really* think that I'm
going to be that far off base? And, if not, why disrupt the conversation so
badly by coming in in such a fashion?)..
(And I have to say --> As list owner, it would be helpful if you would set a
good example of reading threads and trying to understand what people meant
rather than immediately coming in and flinging insults and accusations of
ignorance e.g. "This is obviously spoken by someone who has never . . . . ").
So . . . . can you agree with the claim as phrased above? (i.e. What were we
disagreeing on again? ;-)
Oh, and the original point was part of a discussion about the necessary and
sufficient pre-requisites for general intelligence so it made sense to
(awkwardly :-) say that a domain model and the rudiments of critical
thinking/scientific methodology are a (major but not complete) part of that.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark W wrote:
What were we disagreeing on again?
This conversation has drifted into interesting issues in the philosophy of
science, most of which you and I seem to substantially agree on.
However, the point I took issue with was your claim that a stupid person
could be taught to effectively do science ... or (your later modification)
evaluation of scientific results.
At the time I originally took exception to your claim, I had not read the
earlier portion of the thread, and I still haven't; so I still do not know why
you made the claim in the first place.
ben
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
