RE: [agi] Thinking may be overrated.
Kevin Copple wrote: I do not want to say that random trial and error is the ultimate form of intelligent thought. Far from it. But given what nature and humankind have achieved with it to date, and that we may not even recognize the extent to which it is involved in our own thought, it seems to be an intriguing ingredient. Perhaps artificial trial and error systems can lead us to pure intelligence. That is, if pure intelligence is not an illusion, a mirage, an unachievable holy grail. Well, I agree with you that random trial and error is an intriguing ingredient and an important ingredient of cognition. Evolutionary programming is a key aspect of Novamente's procedure learning module, which is one of Novamente's most important components. But regarding artificial trial and error can lead us to pure intelligence -- I think it can, but only after a long time. I don't think this is anywhere near the shortest path... I don't think a mind based primarily on trial and error could run on viable hardware. I think that a digital evolution process based on trial and error could lead to the evolution of a mind, but this would take a while !! -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Thinking may be overrated.
Kevin Copple wrote: Thinking in humans, much like genetic evolution, seems to involve predominately trial and error. Even the logic we like to use is more often than not faulty, but can lead us to try something different. And example of popular logic that is invariably faulty is reasoning by analogy. It is attractive, but always breaks down on close examination. But this type of reasoning will lead to a trial that may succeed, possibly because of the attractive similarities, but more likely in spite of them. I don't agree with this paragraph, although I see some truth in it. I think that trial and error based idea-evolution is one important aspect of human cognition, but not the *predominant* aspect. It may predominate in some circumstances, but these would be unusual ones where there was little pertinent background knowledge Analogical inference can be formulated rigorously in probabilistic terms. It does have a guesswork aspect to it, but it's a well-organized way of managing conditional probabilities... in my view ;_) In Novamente, we have an EvolutionaryConceptCreation MindAgent which explicitly uses trial and error to create new ideas. But it is intended for use together with other MindAGents, including those implementing probabilistic inference If you set the parameters of the system so that evolutionary concept creation predominated, I think you'd find a system with far below optimal functionality.. Traditional logic-based AI has badly underemphasized the role of trial and error, but I'm afraid you're swinging to the opposite extreme !! -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] Thinking may be overrated.
Ben Goertzel wrote: Traditional logic-based AI has badly underemphasized the role of trial and error, but I'm afraid you're swinging to the opposite extreme !! It has been said that it is easier to bring a wild idea under control than to give life into a lame idea, so considering an extreme position may not be a bad tactic. In further defense of trial and error, I would point out that much or most of our human knowledge and progress has been the result of countless random trials and errors of others. If the pre-Columbian Native Americans had a strong value for seeking advancement through trial and error, I imagine they would have discovered much better archery techniques that would have dramatically altered human history. Would those countless archers have met the criteria for AGI? Surely they would have. But they apparently lacked respect for random trial and error in the pursuit of progress. Clearly they WANTED their arrows to have three times the range, speed and power. Seems this is an obvious case of an AGI (minus the artificial) that desperately needed the random trial and error problem solving method. In my life, I have found that various forms of negative feedback often taught me an effective lesson, even though I intellectually KNEW the lesson beforehand. As in, I knew that was a bad idea, tried it anyway, and will never again. I have seen this behavior many times in others as well. This is the type of observation that makes me wonder the extent to which emotion is the real driver in our intelligent behavior. WANTING to succeed often seems to be the real factor in success at solving problems. What is the pattern matching that occurs in our biological neural nets? Is it not a simple trial and error, with more dimensions? To me, seeing a pattern in a series of words, images, or numbers in an IQ test is a type of trial and error. I am getting beyond my ability to express myself, at least without more energy and time than I have at the moment, but it occurs to me that what we perceive as logic in our brains is actually massively parallel trial and error processes with emotional reinforcement for success or failure. I do not want to say that random trial and error is the ultimate form of intelligent thought. Far from it. But given what nature and humankind have achieved with it to date, and that we may not even recognize the extent to which it is involved in our own thought, it seems to be an intriguing ingredient. Perhaps artificial trial and error systems can lead us to pure intelligence. That is, if pure intelligence is not an illusion, a mirage, an unachievable holy grail. Cheers, Kevin Copple --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
