On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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? > I think that's a large part of it Incorrect things are wrapped up with correct things in peoples' minds However, pure slowness at learning is another part of the problem ... > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *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*<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> > <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
