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

Reply via email to