Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote in a Sun 11/11/2007 11:09 PM post
RICHARD####> You are right. I have only spent about 25 years working on
this
problem. Perhaps, no matter how bright I am, this is not enough to
understand Novamente's promise.
ED####> There a many people who have spent 25 years working on AI who
have not spent the time to try to understand the multiple threads that
make up the Novamente approach. From the one paper I read from you, as
I remember it, your major approach to AI was based on a concept of
complexity in which it was hard-for-humans-to-understand the
relationship between the lower level of the system and the higher level
functions you presumably want it to have. This is very different than
the Novamente approach, which involves complexity, but not so much at an
architectural level, but rather at the level of what will emerge in the
self-organizing gen/comp network of patterns and behaviors that
architecture is designed to grow, all under the constant watchful eye --
and selective weeding and watering -- of its goal and reward systems.
As I understand it, the complexity in Novamente is much more like that
in an economy in which semi-rational actors struggle to find and make a
niche at which they can make a living, than the somewhat more anarchical
complexity in the cellular automata Game Of Life.
I am sorry, but this is a rather enormous misunderstanding of the claim
I made. Too extensive for me to be able to deal with in a list post.
So perhaps you are like most people who have spent a career in AI, in
that the deep learning you have obtained has not spend enough time
thinking about the pieces of Novamente-like approaches. But it is
almost certain that that 25 years worth of knowledge would make it much
easier for you to understand Novamente-like approach than all but a very
small percent of this planet/s people, if you really wanted to.
>ED####> I am sure you are smart enough to understand its promise if
you wanted to. Do you?
RICHARD####> I did want to.
I did.
I do.
ED####> Great. If you really do, I would start reading the papers at
___http://www.novamente.net/papers/_. Perhaps Ben could give you a
better reading list than I.
I don’t know about you, Richard, but given my mental limitations, I
often find I have to read some parts of paper 2 to 10 times to
understand them. Usually much is unsaid in most papers, even the well
written ones. You often have to spend time filling in the blanks and
trying to imagine how what its describing would actually work. Much of
my understanding of the Novamente approach not only comes from a broad
range of reading and attending lectures in AI, micro-electronic, and
brain science, but also a lot of thinking about what I have read and
heard from other, and about what I have observed over decades of my own
thought processes.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, Ed. I read all of the
Novamente papers a couple of years ago. My own thinking had already
gone to that point and (in my opinion) well beyond it.
You are implying that perhaps I do not understand it well enough. I
understand it, understand a very wide range of issues that surround it,
and also understand what i see as some serious limitations (some of
which are encapsulated in my complexity paper).
Thanks for your concern, but understanding the Novamente approach is not
my problem.
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=64175754-1868ef
