*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

Reply via email to