Well, I see that Mike did say "normally move..." so yes that type of principle could be used in a more flexible AGI program (although there is still a question about the use of any presumptions that go into this level of detail about their reference subjects. I would not use a primary reference like Mike's in my AGI program just because it is so presumptuous about animate and inanimate objects). But anyway, my criticism then is that the presumption is not really superior - in any way - to the run of the mill presumptions that you often hear considered in discussions about AGI programs. For example, David never talked about distinguishing between animate and inanimate objects (in the sense of the term 'animate' that Mike is using the words,) and his reference was only made to an graphics example to present the idea that he was talking about. Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Mike Tintner > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Inanimate objects normally move *regularly,* in *patterned*/*pattern* >> ways, and *predictably.* >> >> Animate objects normally move *irregularly*, * in *patchy*/*patchwork* >> ways, and *unbleedingpredictably* . >> > > This presumption looks similar (in some profound way) to many of the > presumptions that were tried in the early days of AI, partly because > computers lacked memory and they were very slow. It's unreliable just > because we need the AGI program to be able to consider situations when, for > example, inanimate objects move in patchy patchwork ways or in unpredictable > patterns. > > 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
