Hmm... I think that non-retarded humans are fully general intelligences in the following weak sense: for any fixed t and l, for any human there are some numbers M and T so that if the human is given amount M of external memory (e.g. notebooks to write on), that human could be taught to emulate AIXItl
[see http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Artificial-Intelligence-Algorithmic-Probability/dp/3540221395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224614995&sr=1-1, or the relevant papers on Marcus Hutter's website] where each single step of AIXItl might take up to T seconds. This is a kind of generality that I think no animals but humans have. So, in that sense, we seem to be the first evolved general intelligences. But, that said, there are limits to what any one of us can learn in a fixed finite amount of time. If you fix T realistically then our intelligence decreases dramatically. And for the time-scales relevant in human life, it may not be possible to teach some people to do science adequately. I am thinking for instance of a 40 yr old student I taught at the University of Nevada way back when (normally I taught advanced math, but in summers I sometimes taught remedial stuff for extra $$). She had taken elementary algebra 7 times before ... and had had extensive tutoring outside of class ... but I still was unable to convince her of the incorrectness of the following reasoning: "The variable a always stands for 1. The variable b always stands for 2. ... The variable z always stands for 26." She was not retarded. She seemed to have a mental block against algebra. She could discuss politics and other topics with seeming intelligence. Eventually I'm sure she could have been taught to overcome this block. But, by the time she overcame every other issue in the way of really understanding science, her natural lifespan would have long been overspent... -- Ben G On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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*<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_and_Against_Method&action=edit&redlink=1>(ISBN > 0-226-46774-0<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0226467740> > ). > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *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 <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> > <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
