You'll remember that I've been saying this for quite a while - now Kevin
Kelly is saying it - and you'll be hearing a lot more of this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-future-t.html?_r=2sq=KEVIN%20KELLYst=csescp=1pagewanted=all
Intelligence that is rationality without
Yes, but rationality without imagination and creativity is just a
bogus straw man construct ... certainly, it is never what I mean
when I talk about rationality ...
Obsession with visual images is a whole other issue, though. It seems
very obvious that an AI or alien organism with no visual
Although a lot of AI-type research focuses on natural language interfaces
between computer systems and their human users, computers have the ability to
create visual images (which people can't do in real-time beyond gestures and
facial expressions). Building computer systems that generate
is doingas a
whole or by states
--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [agi] The Future of AGI
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 11:02 AM
#yiv2133712726 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px
Ben,
I should explain rationality - I mean it technically to cover (principally
formal) language, logic and maths, including geometry. These are all the
sign systems (inherited from the Greeks) which convert the world into more
or less hard-edged, more or less abstract boxes - words, numbers,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intelligence that is rationality without imagination, symbol manipulation
without image manipulation, basically paper-based rather than screen-based
(or consciousness-based), isn't intelligence at all.
Although this may
to better and more rapidly communicate visual
information to humans.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:03 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] The Future of AGI
Although a lot of AI-type research
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I should explain rationality
No Mike, you *really* shouldn't. Repurposing words like you do merely leads
to confusion not clarity . . . .
Actual general intelligence in humans and animals is indisputably
continuously
Hmmm...
I don't think your conceptualization of rationality is particularly
useful ...
I do think formal reasoning is a useful category to distinguish, but
this is much narrower than what you're somewhat arbitrarily lumping
into the category of rationality
I don't think it's sensible to say
Formal reasoning can be thought of as medium, a canvas on which your
imagination draws structures serving your goals best, that solve your
problem or are simply aesthetically pleasing. There is an infinite
number of possible formal derivations, theorems and proofs;
limitations of formality of
10 matches
Mail list logo
