>> But, by the time she overcame every other issue in the way of really >> understanding science, her natural lifespan would have long been overspent...
You know, this is a *really* interesting point. Effectively what you're saying (I believe) is that the difficulty isn't in learning but in UNLEARNING incorrect things that actively prevent you (via conflict) from learning correct things. Is this a fair interpretation? It's also particularly interesting when you compare it to information theory where the sole cost is in erasing a bit, not in setting it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI 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 (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 | Modify Your Subscription -- 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
