Marc Walser wrote
>>>
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?
<<<
Before you ask for counter examples you should *first* give some arguments
which supports your hypothesis. This was my point. If everyone would make
wild hypotheses and ask other scientists to find counter-examples then we
would end up in a explosion of number of hypotheses. But if you would first
show some arguments which support your hypothesis then you give reasons to
the scientific community why it is worth to use some time to think about the
hypothesis. Regarding your example with Darwin: Darwin had gathered signs of
evidence which supports his hypothesis *first* .
>>>
First, I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the strawman. You are the only one
who keeps insisting that anything is "easy".
<<<
Is this a scientific discussion from you? No. You use rhetoric and nothing
else.
I don't say 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.
<<<
This is the first time you speak about pre-requisites. Your whole hypothesis
changes with these pre-requisites. If you would be scientific you would
qualify what are your pre-requisites.
>>>
So, for simplicity, why don't we just say
scientist = understanding
<<<
Understanding does not imply the ability to create something new or to apply
knowledge.
Furthermore natural language understanding does not imply understanding
*general* domains. There is much evidence that the ability to understand
natural language does not imply to the understanding of mathematics. Not to
speak from the ability to create mathematics.
>>>
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 ;-).
<<<
Understanding does not equal scientist.
The claim that natural language understanding needs understanding is
trivial. This wasn't your initial hypothesis.
----- 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/?&;
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
