Ben, Hey, maybe I FINALLY got your "frame of mind" here. Just to test this, consider:
Suppose we change the format NOT to exclude anything at all, but rather I/you/we set up a Wiki that includes EVERYTHING. Right next to a technical details may be a link to a philosophical point, and right next to a philosophical point may be a link to a technical detail. Then, on this forum, people would only post pointers to new edits and information that they EXPECT would disappear into the bit bucket by tomorrow. We would include identified "buzz phrases" to be able to pull important but disjoint things together, as I have been using the buzz phrase "Ben's list" with my various distilled "philosophical" (read that "feasibility") points. This way, everything ever related to a given subject would be pulled together and organized. I would be happier because the feasibility issues would all be together for anyone entering AGI to consider, and you would be happier because your technical section would be undisturbed by "philosophical" discussion, except for a few hyperlinks sprinkled therein. Does this work for everyone? Steve Richfield ================= On 10/20/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just to clarify one point: I am not opposed to philosophy, nor do I > consider it irrelevant to AGI. I wrote a book on my own philosophy of mind > in 2006. > > I just feel like the philosophical discussions tend to overwhelm the > pragmatic discussions on this list, and that a greater number of pragmatic > discussions **might** emerge if the pragmatic and philosophical discussions > were carried out in separate venues. > > Some of us feel we already have adequate philosophical understanding to > design and engineer AGI systems. We may be wrong, but that doesn't mean we > should spend our time debating our philosophical understandings, to the > exclusion of discussing the details of our concrete AGI work. > > For me, after enough discussion of the same philosophical issue, I stop > learning anything. Most of the philosophical discussions on this list are > nearly identical in content to discussions I had with others 20 years ago. > I learned a lot from the discussions then, and learn a lot less from the > repeats... > > -- Ben > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Vlad:Good philosophy is necessary for AI...We need to work more on the >> foundations, to understand whether we are >> going in the right direction >> >> >> More or less perfectly said. While I can see that a majority of people >> here don't want it, actually philosophy, (which should be scientifically >> based), is essential for AGI, precisely as Vlad says - to decide what are >> the proper directions and targets for AGI. What is creativity? Intelligence? >> What are the kinds of problems an AGI should be dealing with? What kind(s) >> of knowledge representation are necessary? Is language necessary? What forms >> should concepts take? What kinds of information structures, eg networks, >> should underlie them? What kind(s) of search are necessary? How do analogy >> and metaphor work? Is embodiment necessary? etc etc. These are all matters >> for what is actually philosophical as well as scientific as well as >> technological/engineering discussion. They tend to be often more >> philosophical in practice because these areas are so vast that they can't be >> neatly covered - or not at present - by any scientific. >> experimentally-backed theory. >> >> If your philosophy is all wrong, then the chances are v. high that your >> engineering work will be a complete waste of time. So it's worth considering >> whether your personal AGI philosophy and direction are viable. >> >> And that is essentially what the philosophical discussions here have all >> been about - the proper *direction* for AGI efforts to take. Ben has >> mischaracterised these discussions. No one - certainly not me - is objecting >> to the *feasibility* of AGI. Everyone agrees that AGI in one form or other >> is indeed feasible, though some (and increasingly though by no means fully, >> Ben himself) incline to robotic AGI. The arguments are mainly about >> direction, not feasibility. >> >> (There is a separate, philosophical discussion, about feasibility in a >> different sense - the lack of a culture of feasibility, which is perhaps, >> subconsciously what Ben was also referring to - no one, but no one, in >> AGI, including Ben, seems willing to expose their AGI ideas and proposals >> to any kind of feasibility discussion at all - i.e. how can this or that >> method solve any of the problem of general intelligence? This is what Steve >> R has pointed to recently, albeit IMO in a rather confusing way. ) >> >> So while I recognize that a lot of people have an antipathy to my personal >> philosoophising, one way or another, you can't really avoid philosophising, >> unless you are, say, totally committed to just one approach, like Opencog. >> And even then... >> >> P.S. Philosophy is always a matter of (conflicting) opinion. (Especially, >> given last night's exchange, philosophy of science itself). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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 <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/> > ------------------------------------------- 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
