> You may not like "Therefore, we cannot understand the math needed to define > our own intelligence.", but I'm rather convinced that it's correct.
Do you mean to say that there are parts that we can't understand or that the totality is too large to fit and that it can't be cleanly and completely decomposed into pieces (i.e. it's a complex system ;-). Personally, I believe that the foundational pieces necessary to construct/boot-strap an intelligence are eminently understandable (if not even fairly simple) but that the resulting intelligence that a) organically grows from it's interaction with an environment that it can only extract partial, dirty, and ambiguous data and b) does not have the time, computational capability, or data to make itself even remotely consistent past a certain level IS large and complex enough that you will never truly understand it (which is where I have sympathy with Richard Loosemore's arguments -- but don't buy that the interaction of the pieces is necessarily so complex that we can't make broad predictions that are accurate enough to be able to "engineer" intelligence). If you say "parts we can't understand", how do you reconcile that with your statements of yesterday about what general intelligences can learn? ------------------------------------------- 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
