Thank you! This feeds back into the feedback discussion, in a way, at a high
level. There's a significant difference between research programming and
production programming. The production programmer is building something which
if (nominally) understood and planned ahead of time. The
Vlad,
Re your comment below, I would argue rapid intuitive decision making is
fundamental, because that often largely subconscious ability to quickly
decide between which of multiple alternatives to focus attention on to
include in your behavior is an essential component to much of human thought
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard Loosemore:
I'll try to tidy this up and put it on the blog tomorrow.
I'd like to pursue the discussion and will do so in that venue after
your post.
I do think it is a very interesting issue. Truthfully I'm more
interested in your specific program for how to
Steve Richfield wrote:
The process that we call thinking is VERY
different in various people. [...]
[...]
Any thoughts?
Steve Richfield
The post above -- real food for thought -- was the most
interesting post that I have ever read on the AGI list.
Arthur T. Murray
--
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H I detect a parody..?
That is not what I intended to say.
No, as horrible as it may sound, this is how I see the problem that
you are trying to address. If you can pinpoint some
J Andrew Rogers writes: Most arguments and disagreements over complexity are
fundamentally about the strict definition of the term, or the complete
absence thereof. The arguments tend to evaporate if everyone is forced to
unambiguously define such terms, but where is the fun in that.
I agree
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between theoretical
models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at least 1980,
and one thing I have noticed is that people devise theoretical
structures
how I presume a Novamente system would work
I think that we all need to be more careful about our
presumptions/assumptions. I think that many important comceptual pieces are
glossed over and lost this way.
Novamente currently has absolutely no sign of and/or detailed plans for
*numerous*
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must assume that we will never
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your
complexity argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean
it's not surprising that people are complacent about it.
Bit of an overgeneralization, methinks: this list is disproportionately
populated with people who
How confident are you that this only-complex-AI limitation applies in
reality? How much would you bet on it? I'm not convinced, and I think
that if you are convinced too much, you made wrong conclusions from
your data, unless you communicated too little of what formed your
intuition.
I am
Any thoughts?
My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . . . .
The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people.
Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I
am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective
I am re-posting this because I first sent it out an hour ago and it is not
yet showing on my email
-Original Message-
RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? ---re Loosemore's
complexity argument
Richard,
I read the article in your blog (http://susaro.com/) cited
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must
On Apr 22, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
In my experience it is not so much that they sound the same but
that we don't know how to say them (in terms of mouth mechanics)
such that we can isolate the difference between sounds that would
have been in the range of a single phoneme in
Mark Waser: Huh? Why doesn't engineering discipline address building complex
devices?
Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Can you give me some examples where engineering
has produced complex devices (in the sense of complex that Richard means)?
---
agi
Computers. Anything that involves aerodynamics.
- Original Message -
From: Derek Zahn
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Thoughts on the Zahn take on Complex Systems [WAS Re: [agi] WHAT
ARE THE MISSING ...]
Mark Waser:
Huh? Why
Me: Can you give me some examples where engineering
has produced complex devices (in the sense of complex
that Richard means)?
Mark: Computers. Anything that involves aerodynamics.
Richard, is this correct? Are human-engineered airplanes complex in the sense
you mean?
I don't know what is going to be more complex than a variable-geometry-wing
aircraft like a F-14 Tomcat. Literally nothing can predict it's aerodynamic
behavior. The avionics are purely reactive because it's future behavior cannot
be predicted to any certainty even at computer speeds -- yet
Derek Zahn wrote:
Me:
Can you give me some examples where engineering
has produced complex devices (in the sense of complex
that Richard means)?
Mark:
Computers. Anything that involves aerodynamics.
Richard, is this correct? Are human-engineered airplanes complex in the
sense
Mark Waser:
I don't know what is going to be more complex than a variable-geometry-wing
aircraft like a F-14 Tomcat. Literally nothing can predict it's aerodynamic
behavior.
The avionics are purely reactive because it's future behavior cannot be
predicted
to any certainty even at
Richard, is this correct? Are human-engineered airplanes complex in the
sense you mean?
Generally speaking, no, not in a substantial enough way.
Which means that there is a certain amount of unpredictability in some
details, and there are empirical factors that you need to use (tables of
Richard Loosemore: it makes no sense to ask is system X complex?. You can
only ask how much complexity, and what role it plays in the system.
Yes, I apologize for my sloppy language. When I say is system X complex?
what I mean is whether the RL-complexity of the system is important in
Derek Zahn wrote:
Mark Waser:
I don't know what is going to be more complex than a
variable-geometry-wing
aircraft like a F-14 Tomcat. Literally nothing can predict it's
aerodynamic behavior.
The avionics are purely reactive because it's future behavior cannot
be predicted
to any
Mark Waser wrote:
Richard, is this correct? Are human-engineered airplanes complex in
the sense you mean?
Generally speaking, no, not in a substantial enough way.
Which means that there is a certain amount of unpredictability in some
details, and there are empirical factors that you need to
25 matches
Mail list logo
