Steve, Ignoring your overheated invective, I will make one more attempt to address your objections. **If and only if** you will be so kind as to summarize them in a compact form in a single email. If you give me a numbered list of your objections against my approach to AGI and other similar approaches, in which each objection is summarized in a few dozen words at most, then I will respond by summarizing my reaction to each of your objections.
-- Ben G On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Ben, > > First, note that I do NOT fall into the group that says that you can't > engineer digital AGI. However, I DO believe that present puny computers are > not up to the task, and some additional specific research (that I have > previously written about here) needs to be done before programming can be > done with a reasonable expectation of success. > > After consulting my assortment of reference dictionaries,,, > > On 10/16/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >>> I completely agree that puzzles can be ever so much more interesting when >>> you can successfully ignore that they cannot possibly lead to anything >>> useful. Further, people who point out the reasons that they cannot succeed >>> are really boors and should be censored. This entire thread should be >>> entitled something like "Psychiatric Censorship". >>> >> >> I don't know why you are talking about **censorship**. The Internet is >> large. >> > > Censorship (according to all of my dictionaries) only applies to acts in a > particular venue, and does NOT indicate any sort of all-inclusive act to > expunge anything from the mind of man (or machine). For example, an editor > in a particular newspaper may censor something, but of course there are LOTS > of other newspapers, radio and TV stations, etc. Hence, I stand by my > correct use of "censorship" here. > > >> This email list is not intended for discussions of spiritual philosophy >> or biochemistry -- for example -- yet that does not constitute >> **censorship** in the usual sense, as there are many other forums in which >> to discuss those things. >> > > I suspect that the authors and some readers of those same discussions would > categorize them systems analysis or feasibility. > > > >> And the anti-digital-computer-AGI arguments presented on this list have, >> not in one instance, been significantly original. >> > > Agreed. > > This is because you have FLATLY REFUSED to address the old and obvious > objections to approaches presented here. When I arrived, I simply (and > erroneously) presumed ignorance of existing arguments and repeated them. > Now, I still presume ignorance, but of a very different sort. You somehow > believe (please correct me if I am wrong here) that it possible to > successfully build something (anything, a building, a machine, or an AGI) > where there continue to be unaddressed feasibility objections. This is quite > obviously (to me and a couple of other readers here) a management (of your > own efforts) failure of major proportions. > > > >> I and anyone else who has been around the AI community awhile, has heard >> them all before. >> > > However, they still remain unanswered, and as your prior posting clearly > stated, they will (at least in your case) remain unanswered. > > > >> There is nothing to be gained by hearing them over and over again. >> > > Ya know, I think that I FINALLY agree with you, at least in your particular > case, on this point. You will obviously blindly keep going until you fall in > to any one of a long list of holes that others see way ahead of time, but > which you are too busy to look at. No, I do NOT (as your signature line > suggests) expect you to "overcome all objections", but at least you should > look at them enough to say words sufficient to communicate that you have > overcome them in your own mind, and just to show that you are indeed serious > about AGI, you might let is mere mortals in on how you have overcome SOME of > the more major objections. > > > >> If someone has a substantially new argument against the possibility of >> engineering AGI digital-computers, I would be personally interested to hear >> it. >> > > Who needs new arguments, when you show little/no indication that you have > really heard and considered the old arguments? > > > >> Just as I was intrigued by Penrose's anti-digital-AGI argument in terms >> of quantum gravity .. at first ... until I dug in more deeply and decided >> the evidence currently does not support it... >> >> >> >>> >>> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first >>> overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson >>> Add to that: "Nothing will ever succeed if all objections are not first >>> considered" - Steve Richfield >>> >> >> But this latter aphorism has the immediate logical conclusion that nothing >> will ever succeed. >> >> > Because, there is an infinite number of possible objections to any >> statement, >> > > Note the absence of the word "possible" which you apparently presumed. You > only need answer the ACTUAL objections, which are quite countable, and in > environments populated by competent managers, always ARE all considered, at > least by those managers who want to keep their jobs. > > > > Have you heard of the process of "Objection Elimination"? > > > >> so long as one counts as different any two objections that differ >> slightly in wording, even if their meaning is essentially the same. >> > > Obviously, one answer can easily address an entire class of objections. > > What you don't seem to understand is that I, and most of the other AGI >> engineers on this list, have **already heard all these objections** --- we >> have read them in the primary research literature, when they were first >> proposed decades ago, and we don't really need to hear them repeated over >> and over again, usually in rougher and less precise form than the initial >> presentations in the literature. >> > > What mystifies me is that apparently NO ONE has ever answered those many > objections, so mere mortals like me presume them to be correct, yet some > people persist in charging onward in spite of the apparent abyss that lies > ahead. Myself, I believe that there IS a path through the minefield, but you > can't expect to get through a minefield by simply walking through and > ignoring those bumps and depressions in the dirt, disturbed foliage, etc. > > > >> Our lack of agreement with these arguments is NOT because we have not >> heard them repeated often enough!! >> > > Are you then claiming insanity?! Do you have wonderful answers that have > eluded everyone else, yet are too busy to post them? Do you think that you > can simply ignore these issues and still somehow succeed (which seems to be > your present position from what I have read)? > > Our "lack of agreement" has nothing about uniqueness of arguments, or even > accuracy of arguments, but instead is about process - the process of > managing and executing the fabrication of intelligent machines. This is NOT > just about programming, for if you are going to recruit others, get funding, > coordinate a substantial effort, etc., then feasibility issues absolutely > MUST be answered SOMEWHERE, lest everyone associated be considered to be > (world) village idiots, regardless of the correctness (or lack thereof) of > their path. > > The forum you envision is MUCH narrower than the advertised nature of this > AGI forum. May I suggest that a new forum for "programming techniques that > may be useful in a future century when present real-world impediments have > been removed" be formed and YOU move THERE instead of moving the > still-rational AGI-interested population from here to somewhere else. > > Steve Richfield > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
