Eric: The difference between nondeterministic computation and deterministic
computation is a source of random numbers... Certainly, for modelling
purposes, it may well be fruitful to think
about the mind as running a non-deterministic program. I'm all in
favor of that. Definitely, when building your AGI, think in terms of
randomized algorithms!
Glad to see you're open-minded about this area. But I don't think "random "
quite cuts what the mind actually does or how it works. It is - and surely
has to be - vastly more sophisticated than anything modern AI or cog sci can
offer - including by way of nondeterministic programs.
If it's free/nondeterministic, for example, then it can choose to a
considerable extent how it thinks about decisions - whether it tosses a coin
(the random method), or - very non-random methods - asks s.o. else's
opinion, thinks for a minute & sees what comes out on top, makes a list of
pros and cons, goes with its "heart" or its "head", takes the first
reasonable option that comes to mind, uses a probabilistic logic network
(although that's hard if you can't calculate the probabilities) ... and so
on ad infinitum. (And indeed humans do spend a considerable time on
metacognitive thought - just thinking about how they're going to think - &
BTW Johnson-Laird made a big deal of this whole dimension of thought).
And why be so limited as to run only ONE program? Hey, emotions are just
about always conflicting - inviting the conscious self to switch on
totally different programs or courses of action - and further inviting it to
keep switching back and forth. AI doesn't seem to have thought about
conflict - or conflicting programs - as fundamental to thought, & cog sci
has very largely ignored conflict. That's the equivalent of physics ignoring
gravity.
For example, you suggested a way back that the mind runs some kind of
program for jealousy. What kind of single program do you think could produce
this stream of thought at the end - and indeed, what kind of program, or
algorithm, period?
Othello: What hath he said?
Iago: Faith, that he did - I know not what he did.
Othello: What? What?
Iago: Lie -
Othello: With her?
Iago: With her, on her; what you will.
Othello: Lie with her! Lie on her! We say, lie on her, when they belie her.
Lie with her! That's fulsome. Handkerchief - confessions, - handkerchief! To
confess, and be hanged for his labour. First, to be hanged, and then to
confess: I tremble at it. Nature would not invest herself in such shadowing
passion without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus. Pish!
Noses, ears, and lips. Is it possible? - Confess! - Handkerchief! - O devil!
[Falls in a trance]
So in contrast to your proposal, I'd invite you to build an AGI that's
nondeterministic, (but not, or rarely, random), exploratory, and deeply
emotionally conflicted , and preferably sentient (with a proto-nervous
system that really feels the pain) - that, I think, would be highly
irrational but much smarter and more adaptive.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
