Jim, YES - and I think I have another piece of your puzzle to consider...
A longtime friend of mine, Dave, went on to become a PhD psychologist, who subsequently took me on as a sort of "project" - to figure out why most people who met me then either greatly valued my friendship, or quite the opposite, would probably kill me if they had the safe opportunity. After much discussion, interviewing people in both camps, etc., he came up with what appears to be a key to decision making in general... It appears that people "pigeonhole" other people, concepts, situations, etc., into a very finite number of pigeonholes - probably just tens of pigeonholes for other people. Along with the pigeonhole, they keep amendments, like "Steve is like Joe, but with ...". Then, there is the pigeonhole labeled "other" that all the mavericks are thrown into. Not being at all like anyone else that most people have ever met, I was invariably filed into the "other" pigeonhole, along with Einstein, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Stephen Hawking, etc. People are "safe" to the extent that they are predictable, and people in the "other" pigeonhole got that way because they appear to NOT be predictable, e.g. because of their worldview, etc. Now, does the potential value of the alternative worldview outweigh the potential danger of perceived unpredictability? The answer to this question apparently drove my own personal classification in other people. Dave's goal was to devise a way to stop making enemies, but unfortunately, this model of how people got that way suggested no potential solution. People who keep themselves safe from others having radically different worldviews are truly in a mental prison of their own making, and there is no way that someone whom they distrust could ever release them from that prison. I suspect that recognition, decision making, and all sorts of "intelligent" processes may be proceeding in much the same way. There may be no "grandmother" neuron/pidgeonhole, but rather a "kindly old person" with an amendment that "is related". If on the other hand your other grandmother flogged you as a child, the filing might be quite different. Any thoughts? Steve Richfield ================ On 11/29/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One of the problems that comes with the casual use of analytical > methods is that the user becomes inured to their habitual misuse. When > a casual familiarity is combined with a habitual ignorance of the > consequences of a misuse the user can become over-confident or > unwisely dismissive of criticism regardless of how on the mark it > might be. > > The most proper use of statistical and probabilistic methods is to > base results on a strong association with the data that they were > derived from. The problem is that the AI community cannot afford this > strong a connection to original source because they are trying to > emulate the mind in some way and it is not reasonable to assume that > the mind is capable of storing all data that it has used to derive > insight. > > This is a problem any AI method has to deal with, it is not just a > probability thing. What is wrong with the AI-probability group > mind-set is that very few of its proponents ever consider the problem > of statistical ambiguity and its obvious consequences. > > All AI programmers have to consider the problem. Most theories about > the mind posit the use of similar experiences to build up theories > about the world (or to derive methods to deal effectively with the > world). So even though the methods to deal with the data environment > are detached from the original sources of those methods, they can > still be reconnected by the examination of similar experiences that > may subsequently occur. > > But still it is important to be able to recognize the significance and > necessity of doing this from time to time. It is important to be able > to reevaluate parts of your theories about things. We are not just > making little modifications from our internal theories about things > when we react to ongoing events, we must be making some sort of > reevaluation of our insights about the kind of thing that we are > dealing with as well. > > I realize now that most people in these groups probably do not > understand where I am coming from because their idea of AI programming > is based on a model of programming that is flat. You have the program > at one level and the possible reactions to the data that is input as > the values of the program variables are carefully constrained by that > level. You can imagine a more complex model of programming by > appreciating the possibility that the program can react to IO data by > rearranging subprograms to make new kinds of programs. Although a > subtle argument can be made that any program that conditionally reacts > to input data is rearranging the execution of its subprograms, the > explicit recognition by the programmer that this is useful tool in > advanced programming is probably highly correlated with its more > effective use. (I mean of course it is highly correlated with its > effective use!) I believe that casually constructed learning methods > (and decision processes) can lead to even more uncontrollable results > when used with this self-programming aspect of advanced AI programs. > > The consequences then of failing to recognize that mushed up decision > processes that are never compared against the data (or kinds of > situations) that they were derived from will be the inevitable > emergence of inherently illogical decision processes that will mush up > an AI system long before it gets any traction. > > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
