) part of that.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark W wrote:
What were we disagreeing on again?
This conversation has drifted into interesting issues
In brief -- You've agreed that even a stupid person is a general
intelligence. By do science, I (originally and still) meant the
amalgamation that is probably best expressed as a combination of critical
thinking and/or the scientific method. My point was a combination of both
a) to be a
I'm also confused. This has been a strange thread. People of average
and around-average intelligence are trained as lab technicians or
database architects every day. Many of them are doing real science.
Perhaps a person with down's syndrome would do poorly in one of these
largely practical
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural
My apologies if I've misconstrued you. Regardless of any fault, the basic
point was/is important. Even if a considerable percentage of science's
conclusions are v. hard, there is no definitive scientific method for
reaching them .
I think I understand.
Message -
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something
.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that
MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
And MW has given
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates
, October 21, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I *have* to laugh . . . .
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires
don't say that anything is easy.
Direct quote cut and paste from *your* e-mail . . . .
--
From: Dr. Matthias Heger
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
The process of translating
Mark Waser answered to
I don't say that anything is easy.
:
Direct quote cut and paste from *your* e-mail . . . .
--
From: Dr. Matthias Heger
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining
]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:41 AM
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I *have* to laugh . . . .
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
Scientific method
Mark,
As you asked for references I will give you two:
Thank you for setting a good example by including references but the
contrast between the two is far better drawn in *For and Against
Method*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_and_Against_Methodaction=editredlink=1(ISBN
I think I see what's on the table here. Does all this mean a Bayes
net, properly motivated, could be capable of performing scientific
inquiry? Maybe in combination with a GA that tunes itself to maximize
adaptive mutations in the input based on scores from the net, which
seeks superior product
-
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Hmm...
I think that non-retarded humans are fully general intelligences in the
following weak sense: for any fixed t and l, for any human there are some
]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:56 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Hmm...
I think that non-retarded humans are fully general intelligences in the
following weak sense: for any fixed t and l, for any human there are some
numbers M and T so
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Incorrect things are wrapped up with correct things in peoples' minds
However, pure slowness at learning is another part of the problem ...
Mark seems to be thinking of something like the checklist that the ISP
technician walks through
).
**And adding different research programmes and/or priors always seems like such
a kludge . . . . .
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark,
As you asked
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
I think I see what's on the table here. Does all this mean a Bayes
net, properly motivated, could be capable of performing scientific
inquiry? Maybe in combination with a GA
21, 2008 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Incorrect things are wrapped up with correct things in peoples' minds
However, pure slowness at learning is another part of the problem ...
Mark seems to be thinking
Post #101 :V
Somehow this hit the wrong thread :|
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Post #101 :V
---
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=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by
Mark W wrote:
What were we disagreeing on again?
This conversation has drifted into interesting issues in the philosophy of
science, most of which you and I seem to substantially agree on.
However, the point I took issue with was your claim that a stupid person
could be taught to effectively
It would also be nice if this mailing list could be operate on a bit more of
a scientific basis. I get really tired of pointing to specific references
and then being told that I have no facts or that it was solely my opinion.
This really has to do with the culture of the community on the
(and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that there is).
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
It would also be nice if this mailing list could be operate
Any argument of the kind you should better first read xxx + yyy +. is
very weak. It is a pseudo killer argument against everything with no content
at all.
If xxx , yyy . contains really relevant information for the discussion
then it should be possible to quote the essential part with few
Matthias, still awaiting a response to this post, quoted below.
Thanks,
Terren
Matthias wrote:
I don't think that learning of language is the entire
point. If I have only
learned language I still cannot create anything. A human
who can understand
language is by far still no good
Terren wrote
Language understanding requires a sophisticated conceptual framework
complete with causal models, because, whatever meaning means, it must be
captured somehow in an AI's internal models of the world.
Conceptual framework is not well defined. Therefore I can't agree or
disagree.
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that there
is).
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with reference
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that
there
is).
That is not what I said.
My views on the philosophy of science are given here:
Eric:
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that
there
is).
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have not agreed on anything.
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination,
and creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This
I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them.
s/as I/inasmuch as I/
,_,
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
be a scientist.
-Matthias
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2008 22:48
An: agi@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Any argument of the kind you should better first read xxx + yyy +… is
very weak. It is a pseudo killer argument against everything with no content
at all.
If xxx , yyy … contains really relevant information for
A conceptual framework starts with knowledge representation. Thus a symbol S
refers to a persistent pattern P which is, in some way or another, a reflection
of the agent's environment and/or a composition of other symbols. Symbols are
related to each other in various ways. These relations
Eric: I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them.
Eric,
My apologies if I've misconstrued you. Regardless of any fault, the basic
point was/is important. Even if a considerable percentage of science's
conclusions are v. hard, there is no definitive
The process of outwardly expressing meaning may be fundamental to any social
intelligence but the process itself needs not much intelligence.
Every email program can receive meaning, store meaning and it can express it
outwardly in order to send it to another computer. It even can do it without
What the computer makes with the data it receives depends on the information
of the transferred data, its internal algorithms and its internal data.
This is the same with humans and natural language.
Language understanding would be useful to teach the AGI with existing
knowledge already
An excellent post, thanks!
IMO, it raises the bar for discussion of language and AGI, and should be
carefully considered by the authors of future posts on the topic of language
and AGI. If the AGI list were a forum, Matthias's post should be pinned!
-dave
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Dr.
2008/10/19 Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The process of outwardly expressing meaning may be fundamental to any social
intelligence but the process itself needs not much intelligence.
Every email program can receive meaning, store meaning and it can express it
outwardly in order to
--- On Sun, 10/19/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every email program can receive meaning, store meaning and
it can express it
outwardly in order to send it to another computer. It even
can do it without
loss of any information. Regarding this point, it even
outperforms
domains before attempting to extend that knowledge to larger domains.
- Original Message -
From: David Hart
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
An excellent post, thanks!
IMO, it raises the bar
Message -
From: David Hart mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
An excellent post, thanks!
IMO, it raises the bar for discussion of language and AGI, and should be
carefully considered
Terren wrote:
Isn't the *learning* of language the entire point? If you don't have an
answer for how an AI learns language, you haven't solved anything. The
understanding of language only seems simple from the point of view of a
fluent speaker. Fluency however should not be confused with a
-
From: Dr. Matthias Heger
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
The process of translating patterns into language should be easier than the
process of creating patterns or manipulating patterns. Therefore I say that
language
: Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:52 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Terren wrote:
Isn't the *learning* of language the entire point? If you don't have an
answer for how an AI learns language, you haven't solved
Matthias wrote:
I don't think that learning of language is the entire
point. If I have only
learned language I still cannot create anything. A human
who can understand
language is by far still no good scientist. Intelligence
means the ability
to solve problems. Which problems can a system
Marc Walser wrote:
*Any* human who can understand language beyond a certain point (say, that of
a slightly sub-average human IQ) can easily be taught to be a good scientist
if they are willing to play along. Science is a rote process that can be
learned and executed by anyone -- as long as
they aren't valid, your
model is disproven by counter-example.
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Matthias Heger
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark Waser wrote:
How is translating patterns
statement is obviously spoken by someone who has lectured as opposed to
taught.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
*Any* human who can understand language
has lectured as opposed
to taught.
- Original Message -
*From:* Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:26 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
*Any* human who can understand language beyond a certain point (say
-
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:21 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Marc Walser wrote:
*Any* human who can understand language beyond a certain point (say, that
of
a slightly sub-average human IQ) can
Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark,
It is not the case that I have merely lectured rather than taught. I've
lectured (math, CS, psychology and futurology) at university, it's true ... but
I've also
good scientific
evaluation if taught the rules and willing to abide by them? Why or why
not?
- Original Message -
*From:* Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Mark
as
an example shows that you don't understand how to properly run a scientific
evaluative process.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Whether a stupid person can do good
Hmm. After the recent discussion it seems this list has turned into the
philosophical musings related to AGI list. Where is the AGI
engineering list?
- samantha
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
?
Your statement is obviously spoken by someone who has lectured as opposed
to taught.
- Original Message -
*From:* Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:26 PM
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
*Any* human who
I've been on some message boards where people only ever came back with
a formula or a correction. I didn't contribute a great deal but it is
a sight for sore eyes. We could have an agi-tech and an agi-philo list
and maybe they'd merit further recombination (more lists) after that.
*Subject:* Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
Sorry Mark, but I'm not going to accept your opinion on this just because
you express it with vehemence and confidence.
I didn't argue much previously when you told me I didn't understand
engineering ... because, although I've worked with a lot
And why don't we keep this on the level of scientific debate rather than
arguing insults and vehemence and confidence? That's not particularly good
science either.
Right ... being unnecessarily nasty is not either good or bad science, it's
just irritating for others to deal with
ben g
I've been thinking. agi-phil might suffice. Although it isn't as explicit.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been on some message boards where people only ever came back with
a formula or a correction. I didn't contribute a great deal but it is
a sight
No, surely this is mostly outside the purview of the AGI list. I'm
reading some of this material and not getting a lot out of it. There
are channels on freenode for this stuff. But we have got to agree on
something if we are going to do anything. Can animals do science? They
can not.
OK, well, I'm not going to formally kill this irrelevant-to-AGI thread as
moderator, but I'm going to abandon it as participant...
Time to get some work done tonight, enough time spent on email ;-p
ben g
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, surely this is
I think embodied linguistic experience could be *useful* for an AGI to do
mathematics. The reason for this is that creativity comes from usage of huge
knowledge and experiences in different domains.
But on the other hand I don't think embodied experience is necessary. It
could be even have
If you don't like mirror neurons, forget them. They are not necessary for my
argument.
Trent wrote
Oh you just hit my other annoyance.
How does that work?
Mirror neurons
IT TELLS US NOTHING.
Trent
---
agi
Archives:
I do not agree that body mapping is necessary for general intelligence. But
this would be one of the easiest problems today.
In the area of mapping the body onto another (artificial) body, computers
are already very smart:
See the video on this page:
http://www.image-metrics.com/
-Matthias
There is no big depth in the language. There is only depth in the
information (i.e. patterns) which is transferred using the language.
Human language seems so magical because it is so ambiguous at a first view.
And just these ambiguities show that my model of transferred patterns is
right.
An
I think here you can see that automated mapping between different faces is
possible and the computer can smoothly morph between them. I think, the
performance is much better than the imagination of humans can be.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
-Matthias
Mike Tintner wrote
Matthias wrote:
There is no big depth in the language. There is only depth in the
information (i.e. patterns) which is transferred using the language.
This is a claim with which I obviously disagree. I imagine linguists
would have trouble with it, as well.
And goes on to conclude:
Therefore
If you can build a system which understands human language you are still far
away from AGI.
Being able to understand the language of someone else does no way imply to
have the same intelligence. I think there were many people who understood
the language of Einstein but they were not able to create
I think it does involve being confronted with two different faces or
objects randomly chosen/positioned and finding/recognizing the similarities
between them.
If you have watched the video carefully then you have heard that they have
spoken from automated algorithms which do the matching.
On
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore I think, the ways towards AGI mainly by studying language
understanding will be very long and possibly always go in a
dead end.
No. Language modeling is AI-complete.
After the first positioning there is no point to point matching at all.
The main intelligence comes from the knowledge base of hundreds of 3d
scanned faces.
This is a huge vector space. And it is no easy task to match a given picture
of a face with a vector(=face) within the vector space.
The
to intelligence (perhaps this is Matthias' point?), but
the process of outwardly expressing meaning is fundamental to any social
intelligence.
Terren
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
There is a difference *why* we use language and *how language
(communication) works*.
The ultimate goal why human used language is to enhance the probability to
survive.
If someone has found something to eat he could tell it his group. Further,
language is useful for knowledge transfer from one
In theorem proving computers are weak too compared to performance of good
mathematicians.
The domain of mathematics is well understood. But we do not understand how
we manage to solve problems within this domain.
In my opinion language itself is no real domain for intelligence at all.
Language
77 matches
Mail list logo
