If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that
MWs hypothesis is wrong.
Science is done by comparing hypotheses to data. Frequently, the fastest
way to handle a hypothesis is to find a counter-example so that it can be
discarded (or extended appropriately to handle the new case). How is asking
for a counter-example unscientific?
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
Ah. Like the theory of evolution is conclusively proved? The scientific
method is about predictive power not proof. Try reading the reference that
I gave Ben. (And if you've got something to prove, maybe the scientific
method isn't so good for you. :-)
And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural
language understanding system can easily be a scientist.
First, I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the strawman. You are the only one
who keeps insisting that anything is "easy".
Second, my hypothesis is more correctly stated that the pre-requisites for a
natural language understanding system are necessary and sufficient for a
scientist because both are AGI-complete. Again, I would appreciate it if
you could correctly represent it in the future.
Third, while I haven't given a tiny argument, I have given a reasonably
short logical chain which I'll attempt to rephrase yet again.
Science is all about modeling the world and predicting future data.
The scientific method simply boils down to making a theory (of how to change
or enhance your world model) and seeing if it is supported (not proved!) or
disproved by future data.
Ben's and my disagreement initially came down to whether a scientist was an
Einstein (his view) or merely capable of competently reviewing data to see
if it supports, disproves, or isn't relevant to the predictive power of a
theory (my view).
Later, he argued that most humans aren't even competent to review data and
can't be made competent.
I agreed with his assessment that many scientists don't competently review
data (inappropriate over-reliance on the heuristic p < 0.5 without
understanding what it truly means) but disagreed as to whether the average
human could be *taught*
Ben's argument was that the scientific method couldn't be codified well
enough to be taught. My argument was that the method was codified
sufficiently but that the application of the method was clearly context
dependent and could be unboundedly complex.
But this is actually a distraction from some more important arguments . . .
.
The $1,000,000 question is "If a human can't be taught something, is that
human a general intelligence?"
The $5,000,000 question is "If a human can't competently follow a recipe in
a cookbook, do they have natural language understanding?"
Fundamentally, this either comes down to a disagreement about what a general
intelligence is and/or what understanding and meaning are.
Currently, I'm using the definition that a general intelligence is one that
can achieve competence in any domain in a reasonable length of time.
To achieve competence in a domain, you have to "understand" that domain
My definition of understanding is that you have a mental model of that
domain that has predictive power in that domain and which you can update as
you learn about that domain.
(You could argue with this definition if you like)
Or, in other words, you have to be a competent scientist in that domain --
or else, you don't truly "understand" that domain
So, for simplicity, why don't we just say
scientist = understanding
Now, for a counter-example to my initial hypothesis, why don't you explain
how you can have natural language understanding without understanding (which
equals scientist ;-).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Matthias Heger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural
language understanding system can easily be a scientist.
-Matthias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2008 22:48
An: agi@v2.listbox.com
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have not agreed on anything.
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
"Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, >imagination,
and creativity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This is basic stuff.
And this is fundamentally what I was trying to say.
I don't think of myself as "philosophically ignorant". I believe
you've reversed the intention of my post. It's probably my fault for
choosing my words poorly. I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them. Next time!
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
