Mike, you are so full of it. There is a big difference between *can* and *don't*. You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that can't.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts - > if you think they do, you must give examples. > > The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is > > a) concepts encase a more or less *infinite diversity of forms* (even > if only applying at first to a "species" of object) - *chair* for example > as I've demonstrated embraces a vast open-ended diversity of radically > different chair forms; higher order concepts like "furniture" embrace ... > well, it's hard to think even of the parameters, let alone the diversity of > forms, here. > > b) concepts are *polydomain*- not just multi- but open-endedly extensible > in their domains; "chair" for example, can also refer to a person, skin in > French, two humans forming a chair to carry s.o., a prize, etc. > > Basically concepts have a freeform realm or sphere of reference, and you > can't have a setform, preprogrammed approach to defining that realm. > > There's no reason however why you can't mechanically and computationally > begin to instantiate the kind of freeform approach I'm proposing. The most > important obstacle is the setform mindset of AGI-ers - epitomised by Dave > looking at squares, moving along set lines - setform objects in setform > motion - when it would be more appropriate to look at something like > snakes.- freeform objects in freeform motion. > > Concepts also - altho this is a huge subject - are *the* "language" of the > "general programs" (as distinct from specialist programs, wh. is all we > have right now) that must inform an AGI. Anyone proposing a grandscale AGI > project like Ben's (wh. I def. wouldn't recommend) must crack the problem of > conceptualisation more or less from the beginning. I'm not aware of anyone > who has any remotely viable proposals here, are you? > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:46 PM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner > <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> And programs as we know them, don't and can't handle *concepts* - despite >> the misnomers of "conceptual graphs/spaces" etc wh are not concepts at all. >> They can't for example handle "writing" or "shopping" because these can only >> be expressed as flexible outlines/schemas as per ideograms. >> > > I disagree with this, and so this is proper focus for our disagreement. > Although there are other aspects of the problem that we probably disagree > on, this is such a fundamental issue, that nothing can get past it. Either > programs can deal with flexible outlines/schema or they can't. If they > can't then AGI is probably impossible. If they can, then AGI is probably > possible. > > I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination is absolutely > necessary aspects of intelligence. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > *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> > ------------------------------------------- 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
