My point was meant to be that <inference or whatever> control is part of
effective concept creation. You had phrased it as if concept creation was an
additional necessity on top of inference control.
But I think we're reaching the point of silliness here . . . . </thread>
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: AW: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is
no AGI
all these words ... "inference", "control", "concept", "creation" ... are
inadequately specified in natural language so misunderstandings will be easy to
come by. However, I don't have time to point out the references to my
particular intended definitions..
I did not mean to imply that the control involved would be entirely in the
domain of inference, even when inference is broadly construed... just that
control of inference, broadly construed, is a key aspect...
ben g
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No system can make those kinds of inventions without sophisticated
inference control. Concept creation of course is required also, though.
I'd argue that this is bad phrasing.
Sure, effective control is necessary to create the concepts that you need
to fulfill your goals (as opposed to far too many random unuseful concepts) . .
. .
But it isn't "Concept creation of course is required also", it really is
"Effective control is necessary for effective concept creation which is
necessary for effective goal fulfillment."
And assuming that control must be sophisticated and necessarily entirely in
the realm of inference are just assumptions . . . . :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: AW: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it
is no AGI
>> Mathematics, though, is interesting in other ways. I don't believe
that much of mathematics involves the logical transformations performed in
proof steps. A system that invents new fields of mathematics, new terms, new
mathematical "ideas" -- that is truly interesting. Inference control is
boring, but inventing mathematical induction, complex numbers, or ring theory
-- THAT is AGI-worthy.
Is this different from generic concept formulation and explanation
(just in a slightly different domain)?
No system can make those kinds of inventions without sophisticated
inference control. Concept creation of course is required also, though.
-- Ben
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
