Hey Steve, thanks for the clarifications!
> My point was that the operation of most interesting phenomena is NOT > fully understood, but consists of various parts, many of which ARE > understood, or are at least easily understandable. Given the typical figure > 6 shape of most problematical cause-and-effect chains, many MAJOR problems > can be solved WITHOUT being fully understood, by simply interrupting the > process at two points, one in the lead-in from the root cause, and one in > the self-sustaining loop at the end. This usually provides considerable > choice in designing a cure. Of course this can't cure everything, but it > WOULD cure ~90% of the illnesses that now kill people, fix most (though > certainly not all) social and political conflicts, etc. > Yep, totally agree. But according to what you state below, there exist some methods that would produce exact resulsts - given you understand the system completely. That is what I was arguing against. In many fields there are problems that are understood completely and yet are still unsolvable. We know exactly the formula for say, the Lorenz curves. Yet it is impossible to determine with any certainly a point a million iterations from now. That is because even a variation at the atomic level would change the result considerably. And if we observe such variation, we change it. It seems to be nature's nature that we can never know it with exacness. Unless we are talking mathematics of course.. but as someone already pointed out on this list, mathematics has little to do with the real world. > As I explained above, many/most complex problems and conflicts can be > fixed WITHOUT a full understanding of them, so your argument above is really > irrelevant to my assertion. > Yeh.. but i wasn't talking about such problems here. I was talking about problems you do have a full understanding of. For example see your statement: Random investment beats nearly all other methods. Not at all! There is some broadly-applicable logical principles that NEVER EVER fail, like Reductio ad Absurdum. Some of these are advanced and not generally known, even to people here on this forum, like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum. Some conflicts require this advanced level of understanding for the participants to participate in a process that leads to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why do you assume most people on this forum would not know/understand them? And how would you relate this to culture anyways? Yes, and THIS TOO is also one of those advanced concepts. If you ask a Palestinian about what the problem is in the Middle East, he will say that it is the Israelis. If you ask an Israeli, he will say that it is the Palestinians. If you ask a Kanamet (from the Twilight Zone show "To Serve Man", the title of a cook book), he will say that the problem is that they are wasting good food. However, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods can point the way to a solution that satisfies all parties. Hmm.. I guess I just don't see how. Could you be a lil more specific? :) > > In short, you appear to be laboring under the most dangerous assumption of > all - that man's efforts to improve his lot and address his problems is at > all logical. It is rarely so, as advanced methods often suggest radically > different and better approaches. Throwing AGIs into the present social mess > would be an unmitigated disaster, of the very sorts that you suggest. > When you say 'man' do you include yourself as well? ;) I hope not.. I don't assume that: Yet you seem to assume that the methods you have are better than anybody else's for any field. ------------------------------------------- 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
