Ben Goertzel wrote:
The argument itself is extremely rigorous: on all the occasions on which
someone has disputed the rigorousness of the argument, they have either
addressed some other issue entirely or they have just waved their hands
without showing any sign of understanding the argument, and then said "...
it's not rigorous!". It is almost comical to go back over the various
responses to the argument: not only do people go flying off in all sorts of
bizarre directions, but they also get quite strenuous about it at the same
time.
Richard, if your argument is so rigorous, why don't you do this: present
a brief, mathematical formalization of your argument, defining all terms
precisely and carrying out all inference steps exactly, at the level
of a textbook
mathematical proof.
I'll be on vacation for the next 2 weeks w/limited and infrequent email access,
so I'll look out for this when I return.
If you present your argument this way, then you can rest assured I will
understand it, as I'm capable to understand math; then, our arguments can
be more neatly directed ... toward the appropriateness of your formal
definitions and assumptions...
Mathematics is about formal systems. The argument is not about formal
systems, it is about real-world intelligent systems and their
limitations, and about the very *question* of whether those intelligent
systems are formal systems. It is about whether scientific methodology
(which is just the exercise of a particular subset of this thing we call
'intelligence') is itself a formal system. To formulate the argument in
mathematical terms would, therefore, be to prejudge the answer to the
question we are addressing - nothing could more silly than to insist on
a mathematical formulation of it.
Asking for a mathematical formulation of an argument that has nothing to
do with formal systems is, therefore, a sign that you have no
understanding of what the argument is actually about.
Now, if it were anyone else I would say that you really did not
understand, and were just, well ignorant. But you actually do
understand that point: when you made the above request I think your
goal was to engage in a piece of pure sophistry. You cynically ask for
something that you know has no relevance, and cannot be supplied, as an
attempt at a put-down. Nice try, Ben.
Or, then again ..... perhaps I am wrong: maybe you really *cannot*
understand anything except math? Perhaps you have no idea what the
actual argument is, and that has been the problem all along? I notice
that you avoided answering my request that you summarize your argument
"against" the complex systems problem ... perhaps you are just confused
about what the argument actually is, and have been confused right from
the beginning?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
