Mike Tintner wrote,
You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this
certainly not universal, but v. common here).
If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a
fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a
new
Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making
these claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more
seriously the implications for their own field
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100
For those who do not have a New Scientist
But Richard,
1)
none of us are **trying** to predict highly specific properties of the state
of an AGI at a certain point in time, based on the AGIs micro-level
configuration
2)
we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to
**engineer** systems ... arguing that certain
This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's
Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this
theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in
physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate
I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool
stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ...
however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced
each other ;-) ...
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool
stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however
when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-)
...
Ben,
His argument (like mine), is that AGI is
Nice!
As someone who knows a thing or two, though, I'd like to point out
that the undecidability of one thing from another thing depends on the
choice of logic. For example, everything else being equal, if we state
the basic rules of the system in both first-order logic and in ZF set
theory, far
The problem of the emergent behavior already arises within a chess program
which
visits millions of chess positions within a second.
I think the problem of the emergent behavior equals the fine tuning problem
which I have already mentioned:
We will know, that the main architecture of our AGI
Matthias,
You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this
certainly not universal, but v. common here).
If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a
fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: find a
new way for
Matthias (cont),
Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical)
problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for
either the US or the world, that will actually work? No show-stopper for
your AGI? [How would you apply logic here, Abram?]
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Matthias (cont),
Alternatively, if you'd like *the* creative ( somewhat mathematical)
problem de nos jours - how about designing a bail-out fund/ mechanism for
either the US or the world, that will actually work? No
Mike,
by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring
about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or
relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By
definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving
Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ...
it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is
impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say
neither of us convinced each other ;-) ...
Ben,
His argument (like mine),
Ben,
I am frankly flabberghasted by your response. I have given concrete example
after example of creative, domain-crossing problems, where obviously there is
no domain or frame that can be applied to solving the problem (as does
Kauffman) - and at no point do you engage with any of them - or
On the contrary,it is *you* who repeatedly resort to essentially
*reference to authority* arguments - saying read my book, my paper etc
etc - and what basically amounts to the tired line I have the proof, I
just don't have the time to write it in the margin
No. I do not claim to have
Charles,
Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm...
Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric
system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms.
Yep.
I.e., choices. This is clearly impossible. To me this
Abram Demski wrote:
Charles,
Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm...
Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric
system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms.
Yep.
I.e., choices. This is
17 matches
Mail list logo
