>> Yes, but each of those steps is very vague, and cannot be boiled down to a
>> series of precise instructions sufficient for a stupid person to
>> consistently carry them out effectively...
So -- are those stupid people still general intelligences? Or are they only
general intelligences to the degree to which they *can* carry them out?
(because I assume that you'd agree that general intelligence is a spectrum like
any other type).
There also remains the distinction (that I'd like to highlight and emphasize)
between a discoverer and a learner. The cognitive skills/intelligence
necessary to design questions, hypotheses, experiments, etc. are far in excess
the cognitive skills/intelligence necessary to evaluate/validate those things.
My argument was meant to be that a general intelligence needs to be a
learner-type rather than a discoverer-type although the discoverer type is
clearly more effective.
So -- If you can't correctly evaluate data, are you a general intelligence?
How do you get an accurate and effective domain model to achieve competence in
a domain if you don't know who or what to believe? If you don't believe in
evolution, does that mean that you aren't a general intelligence in that
particular realm/domain (biology)?
>> Also, those steps are heuristic and do not cover all cases. For instance
>> step 4 requires experimentation, yet there are sciences such as cosmology
>> and paleontology that are not focused on experimentation.
I disagree. They may be based upon thought experiments rather than physical
experiments but it's still all about predictive power. What is that next
star/dinosaur going to look like? What is it *never* going to look like (or
else we need to expand or correct our theory)? Is there anything that we can
guess that we haven't tested/seen yet that we can verify? What else is science?
My *opinion* is that the following steps are pretty inviolable.
A. Observe
B. Form Hypotheses
C. Observe More (most efficiently performed by designing competent
experiments including actively looking for disproofs)
D. Evaluate Hypotheses
E. Add Evaluation to Knowledge-Base (Tentatively) but continue to test
F. Return to step A with additional leverage
If you were forced to codify the "hard core" of the scientific method, how
would you do it?
>> As you asked for references I will give you two:
Thank you for setting a good example by including references but the contrast
between the two is far better drawn in For and Against Method (ISBN
0-226-46774-0).
Also, I would add in Polya, Popper, Russell, and Kuhn for completeness for
those who wish to educate themselves in the fundamentals of Philosophy of
Science
(you didn't really forget that my undergraduate degree was a dual major of
Biochemistry and Philosophy of Science, did you? :-).
My view is basically that of Lakatos to the extent that I would challenge you
to find anything in Lakatos that promotes your view over the one that I've
espoused here. Feyerabend's rants alternate between criticisms ultimately
based upon the fact that what society frequently calls science is far more
politics (see sociology of scientific knowledge); a Tintnerian/Anarchist rant
against structure and formalism; and incorrect portrayals/extensions of Lakatos
(just like this list ;-). Where he is correct is in the first case where
society is not doing science correctly (i.e. where he provided examples
regarded as indisputable instances of progress and showed how the political
structures of the time fought against or suppressed them). But his rants
against structure and formalism (or, purportedly, for freedom and
humanitarianism <snort>) are simply garbage in my opinion (though I'd guess
that they appeal to you ;-).
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, and I *have* to laugh . . . .
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.
In the cited wikipedia entry, the phrase "Scientific method is not a
recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity" is immediately
followed by just such a recipe for the scientific method
A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes
offered as a guideline for proceeding:[25]
Yes, but each of those steps is very vague, and cannot be boiled down to a
series of precise instructions sufficient for a stupid person to consistently
carry them out effectively...
Also, those steps are heuristic and do not cover all cases. For instance
step 4 requires experimentation, yet there are sciences such as cosmology and
paleontology that are not focused on experimentation.
As you asked for references I will give you two:
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (a polemic I don't fully agree with, but his
points need to be understood by those who will talk about scientific method)
Imre Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (which I do
largely agree with ... he's a very subtle thinker...)
ben g
1.. Define the question
2.. Gather information and resources (observe)
3.. Form hypothesis
4.. Perform experiment and collect data
5.. Analyze data
6.. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for
new hypothesis
7.. Publish results
8.. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
----- 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
--
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 | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
