It occurs to me that the raw framework itself may not have been properly
understood. So I've made a generic version. Please note that this framework
was measured, by studying scientists. It is, in and of itself, an example
of the science deliverables ('laws of nature') RIGHT *te*. that are
depicted inside itself. *te*.can be anything: a graph or a table or just
words. It's the symbolic representation that matters. When it becomes
mathematical, the symbol systems can usefully describe complex MIDDLE
physics, and can be explored numerically on the RIGHT. Exploration of
models on the RIGHT can be done by hand (historically) or, since the mid
20th century, by computer. The RIGHT process of exploration of a model is
called (here) EMULATION (to distinguish it from simulation, which assumes
the use of digital computers). Empirical science, which involves the
original natural physics, occurs in MIDDLE/LEFT. Conducted on its own
without empirical work, the RIGHT activity is 'theoretical science'.
When an artificial version of a natural MIDDLE (imperfect fidelity) is made
it is done on the LEFT. The key to identifying if you are doing it is that
some natural causality found in the MIDDLE is replicated on the LEFT. The
left is where science creates all artificial versions of natural phenomena.
All of them retain some aspect of the physics in the MIDDLE. On the RIGHT,
the studied natural physics is not physically involved.
This framework has been peer reviewed and published (described in vastly
more detail), it is a result of a very tedious
multidisciplinary/longitudinal examination of science outcomes and methods
used in achieving them. This diagram is a generalisation of it based on a
figure in the supporting literature. An enormous number of science contexts
were applied to fit the model properly, from the ancient Greeks to the CERN
supercollider, before and after the electronic computer came about, and
even before and after science existed. The model arose implicitly by trial
and error over centuries. It was sustained by mimicry, not by wrote. Now
it is written down in a communicable, understandable fashion.
[image: image.png]
When you customise this generic framework for AGI and examine how the
science of AGI is being conducted, you end up
- Discipline = neuroscience
- MIDDLE nature = brain.
- finding all work in RIGHT, sometimes involving MIDDLE
(cognitive/neuro).
- LEFT replication is completely missing without discussion.
- An expectation that RIGHT leads to AGI, where prima facie and
normally, it would arise on the LEFT.
*The model is Self-Consistent: *
I repeat: this framework was made by using the framework (without having it
formalised). The MIDDLE studied nature was humans behaving scientifically
(the human scientist). On the RIGHT is an abstraction of scientific
behaviour (basically it says that humans scientists behave as per this
framework, but its actually more technically nuanced). On the LEFT, we
have, in principle, an artificial scientist..... another name for that is
an Artificial General Intelligence that is specialised to do science as per
the framework.
Maybe this makes more sense now?
In AGI, understanding how science is conducted is mission-critical. In
science, everyone gets to choose where they are on the framework. What you
don't get to do is confuse RIGHT for LEFT, never test for equivalence,
remain unaware of it and never discuss it.
At least where now discussing it! That's good. :-)
cheers
colin
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M934c2aca8845539996f82517
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
