Correction: 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 [they] can't.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM, David Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
