What does this discussion have to do with the original paper? (BTW, it is at
http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html and is
being discussed on SL4).
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] World domination, but not killing grandchildren (was Re:
Paper: Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 5:51 PM
Steve,
I'm not sure I did miss your point. Mine is the
same as Descartes:
As for Logic, its syllogisms and the majority of
its other precepts are of avail rather in the communication of what we already
know, or... even in speaking without judgment of things of which we are
ignorant, than in the investigation of the unknown.
Descartes
It's finding out new stuff, not logically reworking
old stuff, that is key to the solution of most real world problems - &
conflicts.
Steve:Mike,
MT:Steve: 1) This is
EXACTLY where reverse reductio ad absurdum logic enters the picture.Most
(all?) persistent conflicts reduced to some absurd and apparently
irresolvable argument. ...2) simply drill down into EXACTLY what they think
Statement 1 is almost ridiculous. How many
conflicts did logic ever resolve? Even Descartes had contempt for
logic.
You ***COMPLETELY*** missed my point!
Reverse reductio ad absurdum logic is only ~8 years old and has yet to
be tried on any persistent conflict.
Science is full of conflicts. Evolution happened by a) natural
selection b) Lamarckism c)... Intelligence is a matter of
a) genes b) nurture c) practice. Cancer is due to etc.
etc. Use logic to resolve any of science's conflicts...
Puh-lease.
The problem here and elsewhere is the use of forward-only reasoning.
Perhaps you remember your differential equations class (that I almost
flunked)? There, you had to propose a solution that there was no direct way
to
derive, and then prove that you had indeed found the correct solution. I used
a (early analog) computer to plot these out so I could better guess the
solutions. This sort of inductive logic is MISSING from most people and AGI
proposals.
There are some logic principles that transcend tractable proof or the
ability to acquire in a reasonable-length lifetime. Certainly, any of the
unsolved math problems fall into this category. Reverse reductio ad absurdum
is one such principle. The verbal "proof" is relatively simple, but this
still
defies formulaic proof. Note in passing that professional negotiators believe
that there is always a "win-win solution" in every conflict. Reverse reductio
ad absurdum simply supports this and guides the way to finding those win-sin
solutions.
Statement 2 though has promise...
Yes - once you drill down into religious disputes, they pretty much fall
apart.
Steve Richfield
agi | Archives |
Modify
Your Subscription
agi | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
