On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There are only evolution-built animals, which is a very limited >> repertoir of intelligences. You are saying that if no apple tastes >> like a banana, therefore no fruit tastes like a banana, even banana. > > I'm saying if no fruit anyone has ever tasted confers magical powers, > and theory says fruit can't do so, and there's no evidence whatsoever > that it can, then we should accept that eating fruit does not confer > magical powers.
Yes, we are discussing the theory that banana taste (magical power) doesn't exist. But this theory mustn't consist in merely asserting that there are no precedents, and pass the absence of precedents for evidence. If there is more to the theory, what is the idea in hand-picking this weak point? >> Whether a design is possible or not, you expect to see the same >> result, if it was never attempted. And so, the absence of an >> implementation of design that was never attempted is not evidence of >> impossibility of design. > > But it has been attempted. I cited not only biological evolution and > learning within the lifetime of individuals, but all fields of science > and engineering - including AI, where quite a few very smart people > (myself among them) have tried hard to design something that could > enhance its intelligence divorced from the real world, and all such > attempts have failed. I have only a very vague idea about what you mean by "intelligence divorced from the real world". Without justification, it looks like a scapegoat. > Obviously I can't _prove_ the impossibility of this - in the same way > that I can't prove the impossibility of summoning demons by chanting > the right phrases in Latin; you can always say, well maybe there's > some incantation nobody has yet tried. Maybe there is, but we don't have any hints about the processes that would produce such an effect, much less a prototype demon-summoning device at any level of obfuscation, so there is little prior in that endeavor. Whereas with intelligence, we have a prototype and plenty of theory that seems to grope for the process, but not quite capture it. > But here's a question for you: Is the possibility of intelligence > enhancement in a vacuum a matter of absolute faith, or is there some > point at which you would accept it's impossible after all? If the > latter, when will you accept its futility? Ten years from now? Twenty? > Thirty? As I said earlier, I don't see any inherent dichotomies between the search for fundamental process and understanding of existing biological brains. It doesn't need to be a political decision, if at some point the brain-inspired technology turns out to be a better path, or more likely, informs the theory, let's take it. For now, it looks like cliff-jumping. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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
