Re: AGI

2012-11-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:44, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: you got me. I wrote about things we cannot know - we have no capability to think of it - and you deny that based on products of the human mind (math - logic) saying YES, we can know everything (that we or our products DO know). I am

Re: AGI

2012-11-02 Thread John Mikes
Bruno: you got me. I wrote about things we cannot know - we have no capability to think of it - and you deny that based on products of the human mind (math - logic) saying YES, we can know everything (that we or our products DO know). You claimed to be agnostic (more than myself) - now I don't see

Re: AGI

2012-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Oct 2012, at 23:46, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: my apologies for this late late reply, I am slow to decipher the listpost from the daily inundation of Roger-stuff so I miss some more relevant list-post sometimes. You wrote about the U-M: ...an entity capable of computing all partial

Re: AGI

2012-10-21 Thread John Mikes
live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are under

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
://www.kurzweilai.net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-yet Ben Goertzel's article that hibbsa sent and linked to above says in paragraph 7 that,I salute David Deutsch’s boldness, in writing and thinking about a field where he obviously doesn’t have much practical grounding. Sometimes the views

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like

Re: AGI

2012-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
of the world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread meekerdb
On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to Popperian epistemology can evolve. “To sum

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Alberto G. Corona
that send data to the eart from a person or for that matter, an AGI devide sent to mars with the memories of life in earth erased and with an impulse to inform the earth by radiowaves: While the ordinary rover will be incapable to improve its own program in a qualitative way, the man or the AGI

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread Roger Clough
-08, 16:07:09 Subject: AGI Dear Richard, I think the lengthy text is Ben's article in response to D. Deutsch. Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no. Thanks for copying. It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with ramifications prima vista

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's

Can AGI be proven ?

2012-10-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King I suppose AGI would be the Holy Grail of artificial intelligence, but I fear that only the computer can know that it has actually achieved it, for intelligence is subjective. Not that computers can't in principle be subjective, but that subjectivity (Firstness) can never

Has man created an AGI ? Maybe ?

2012-10-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb We don't know, nor can we ever know for certain, that man has created an AGI, because actual intelligence is subjective, so only the AGI itself can know if it is truly intelligent. The best we can do is test it to see if it acts as if it has intelligence. Roger Clough, rclo

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
their distinct identities in that process. Bruno Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are under

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2012, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Alberto G. Corona
then this is the perfect condition for a foundation of eplistemology, and an absolute meaning of truth. 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 08 Oct 2012, at 23:39, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread meekerdb
On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread meekerdb
On 10/9/2012 8:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you. The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which case it might be that octopus

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 12:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity

Re: AGI

2012-10-09 Thread John Mikes
be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do not go BEYOND. Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic' worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and specification's power

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Russell Standish
autographed it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Kim Jones
correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which epistemology apparently has no role at all. Continuous, open-ended creativity in evolution is considered the main problem in Artificial Life (and perhaps other fields

The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel (Credit: iStockphoto) As we noted in a recent post, physicist David Deutsch said the field of “artificial general intelligence” or AGI has made “no progress whatever during

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread John Clark
How David Deutsch can watch a computer beat the 2 best human Jeopardy! players on planet Earth and then say that AI has made “no progress whatever during the entire six decades of its existence” is a complete mystery to me. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 1:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: except from /The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet/ A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel So in this view, the main missing ingredient in AGI so far is “cognitive synergy”: the fitting-together

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Alberto G. Corona
this is the right thing to do for intelligent beings. A true intelligent being therefore has existential, moral and belief problems. If an artificial intelligent being has these problems, the designed as solved the problem of AGI to the most deeper level. An AGI designed has no such core engine of impulses

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
Deutsch is right. Searle is right. Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without personal

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread meekerdb
purpose. otherwise it would be a sequencer and achiever of disconnected goals at a certain level where the goals would never have coordination, that is it would be not intelligent. I agree that intelligence cannot be separated from purpose. I think that's why projects aimed at creating AGI flounder

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of writing my own detailed response to David

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 5:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:49:12PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? Its not my field - general evolutionary

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 7:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:49:12PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? Its

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Kim Jones
it! On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The problem that exercises me (when I get a chance to exercise it) is that of creativity. David Deutsch correctly identifies that this is one of the main impediments to AGI. Yet biological evolution is a creative process, one for which

10 Big Cog-Sci/AGI ideas

2008-09-09 Thread marc . geddes
*NM* --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options,

10 Big Cog-Sci/AGI ideas: I'm ready to beat Eliezer Yudkowsky!

2008-08-30 Thread marc . geddes
I am here providing a summary of my '10 big ideas' for Cog-Sci/AGI. No justifcation is provided as of yet (that is, my purpose here is merely to clearly and briefly state my 10 big ideas). Their status at this time is of entertaining speculation only. So here's the 10 big ideas: (1