Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard:For my own system (and for Hofstadter too), the natural
extension of the
system to a full AGI design would involve
a system [that] can change its approach and rules of reasoning at
literally any step of problem-solving .... it will be capable of
producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously -
like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same
token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso
facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving.
This is very VERY much part of the design.
There is not any problem with doing all of this.
Does this clarify the question?
I think really I would reflect the question back at you and ask why you
would think that this is a difficult thing to do?
Richard,
Fine. Sounds interesting. But you don't actually clarify or explain
anything. Why don't you explain how you or anyone else can fundamentally
change your approach/rules at any point of solving a problem?
Why don't you, just in plain English, - in philosophical as opposed to
programming form - set out the key rules or principles that allow you
or anyone else to do this? I have never seen such key rules or
principles anywhere, nor indeed even adumbrated anywhere. (Fancy word,
but it just came to mind). And since they are surely a central problem
for AGI - and no one has solved AGI - how on earth could I not think
this a difficult matter?
I have some v. rough ideas about this, which I can gladly set out. But
I'd like to hear yours - you should be able to do it briefly. But
please, no handwaving.
I will try to think about your question when I can but meanwhile think
about this: if we go back to the analogy of painting and whether or not
it can be used to depict things that are abstract or
non-representational, how would you respond to someone who wanted exact
details of how come painting could allow that to be possible.....?
If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say except ...
why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a
question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is
possible to paint things that are not representational.
I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it not possible to do
that. It is possible: it is not easy to do it right, but that's not
the point. Computers can be used to program systems of any sort
(including deeply irrational things like Microsoft Office), so why would
anyone think that AGI systems must exhibit only a certain sort of design?
This isn't handwaving, it is just genuine bafflement.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=73903282-a471b6
