Jim, My post explicitly said that a/your guess is a “reasoned inference.” The key point I’m making – and you’re ignoring – is that it’s a one-off, one-at-a-time business rather than a narrow AI systematic search through a pre-prepared set of options (the kind that cause such “complexity”). And this BTW is the irrefutable truth – no one’s going to produce an AGI problem where there is a neat set of options.
When you noted the existence of “inscrutable events” – (I would say “partly invisible events/objects”) – you were onto something big, taking a big step forward in your AGI thinking. When you started looking for “reliable” ways of solving problems about them – (trying basically to cling to the old narrow AI ways) – you took a big step back. Concentrate on the invisible nature of the subjects of real world problems. There is no reliable way to deal with them. You just gotta get stuck in and guess, or if you prefer “hypothesize”/”theorise”. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:43 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Multiple Vantages Can Be Used to Find Multiple Observation Objectives I made reasoned guesses. And I tried to find alternative ways to support my theory. A theory is not something that is immediately assumed to be a fact. It is a way of combining reasons and reasoned conjectures to try to explain or characterize something. So while I try to make guesses about solving the problem the "guesses" are all carefully tied into the problem. I don't, for example, guess that the solution to the problem is "more horses" or something like that. From the point of view of someone who really does not understand what it is that I am talking about and who does not understand what the contemporary problems are, a remark like that just looks stupid. Of course the solution to creating a feasible AGI program is not "more horses!" But in response to your remark it shows that my "guesses" are somehow strongly tied into the subject matter. That ability to make reasonable educated guesses about problems is something that AGI programs can rarely do because it does not happen often enough to build a solid foundation for general intelligence. Jim Bromer On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Jim: This is an elusive problem because of the range of the possibilities. So, in order to explain how this can take place in a simple time frame I have to guess that it is done through a narrowing of the possibilities. Or it’s done the way you actually tried to solve your problem here. You just guessed. You didn’t “narrow the possibilities”. Neither you nor your unconscious brain could define a set of possibilities here - a set of “methods of solving problems about inscrutable events.” There is no such set. So you just guessed – a one-off, straight-off, reasoned, inference. As you say, you “have to. “ Guess what? That’s how real, inscrutable world reasoning mainly works One guess at a time. Guess after guess. AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
