*Mike,* ** I think there is a confusion here in the meaning of "logic". Specifically, consider... 1, Logic- that body of Boolean and probabilistic methods that would be unavoidable on the way to a degree in Physics, Math, Electronics, etc. (your apparent meaning) 2. Logic - the body of all possible methods, with research continuing into new methods as problems are discovered that old methods fail to resolve. There are many minor disciplines that have developed their own special methods, e.g. police creating the "prisoner's dilemma"; negotiators always looking for the "win-win solution" (which is a LOT like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum); game theory, where the final step is to choose AT RANDOM between the various courses of action, according to carefully calculated probabilities, etc. Taken together these provide a qualitative leap in problem solving abilities that has yet to be appreciated by any but the few who are fully up to speed on these methods
Steve, I certainly do mean what is normally meant by logic - the discipline that is of central interest to most people here. *OK. Within that context I agree with your previous email, but not that it applies to my or my "Type 2" logical methods.* ** "Type 2 Logic" is Steve Richfield's invention, and not in common currency. ** *Some of the methods like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum are my own, while others like Game Theory are long known with extensive literature. I was simply gathering a collection of various "logical" methods that all apply to situations that can NOT be simply reasoned out to a conclusion, and giving them a collective name new to that email.* You seem to be equating it in theory to "any use of reason". *Agreed.* ** And yet at the same time, you also seem in practice mainly to be talking about normal logic, hence "Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum." *I believe this to be my own original invention in January of 2000.* I would suggest you pin it down more precisely, otherwise confused communications are inevitable. *Hopefully I just did.* My general point is that the proper business of AGI is problematic, open, ill-structured problems (real world problems) for which ANY predetermined method or structure of problem-solving is wrong, (or since there is no "right" or "wrong" with such problems, "superineffective") - and which usually demand (unstructured) investigation of the relevant environment to find fresh options and evidence. *I hear you, but I don't believe these to actually exist, except in some (unstructured) people's minds. Can you exhibit one such problem for dissection and discussion?* Narrow AI= structured problemsolving, True AGI= unstructured problemsolving, where the agent must create a structure ad hoc. I may try to give examples another time (it's a long business to do properly). *It would sure help for me to see just one example.* ** *I suspect that a succession of prospective examples would each be found to be subtly "flawed" by the potential application of conventional methods, much as the early definitions of "intelligence", e.g. ability to play checkers, followed by the ability to play chess, etc., were each found to be flawed. Finally came the Turing test, which I have explained on this forum (with much agreement) is also flawed.* But every academic essay, every post here, every conversation and AFAIK the actual *composing* of every computer program is a problematic problem - insoluble by any structured problemsolving. Unless you're happy with something like the Postmodern Essay Generator, http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ (It doesn't really work, but then neither do postmodern essays). *Poor methods produce poor results.* ** *Steve Richfield* ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
