Guys,

A slightly weird conversation. *Everything* cognitive involves problem-solving. 
Perception (is it a bird or a plane?) involves problem-solving.

Perhaps what you really mean is "...involves *deliberate/conscious* 
problem-solving as opposed to *automatic/unconscious* problem-solving" ?


        Matthias, 

        I say understanding natural language requires the ability to solve 
problems. Do you disagree?  If so, then you must have an explanation for how an 
AI that could understand language would be able to understand novel metaphors 
or analogies without doing any active problem-solving. What is your explanation 
for that?

        If on the other hand you agree that NLU entails problem-solving, then 
that is a start. From there we can argue whether the problem-solving abilities 
necessary for NLU are sufficient to allow problem-solving to occur in any 
domain (as I have argued). 

        Terren

        --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

          From: Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
          Subject: AW: [agi] Understanding and Problem Solving
          To: agi@v2.listbox.com
          Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 10:12 AM


          I do not agree. Understanding a domain does not imply the ability to 
solve problems in that domain.

          And the ability to solve problems in a domain even does not imply to 
have a generally a deeper understanding of that domain.



          Once again my example of the problem to find a path within a graph 
from node A to node B:

          Program p1 (= problem solver) can find a path.

          Program p2  (= expert in understanding) can verify and analyze paths.



          For instance, p2 could be able compare the length of the path for the 
first half of the nodes with the length of the path for the second half of the 
nodes. It is not necessary that  P1 can do this as well.



          P2 can not necessarily find a path. But p1 can not necessarily 
analyze its solution.



          Understanding  and problem solving are different things which might 
have a common subset but it is wrong that the one implies the other one or vice 
versa.



          And that’s the main reason why natural language understanding is not 
necessarily AGI-complete.



          -Matthias





          Terren Suydam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote:






                Once again, there is a depth to understanding - it's not simply 
a binary proposition.

                Don't you agree that a grandmaster understands chess better 
than you do, even if his moves are understandable to you in hindsight?

                If I'm not good at math, I might not be able to solve y=3x+4 
for x, but I might understand that y equals 3 times x plus four. My 
understanding is superficial compared to someone who can solve for x. 

                Finally, don't you agree that understanding natural language 
requires solving problems? If not, how would you account for an AI's ability to 
understand novel metaphor? 

                Terren

                --- On Thu, 10/23/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

                From: Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                Subject: [agi] Understanding and Problem Solving
                To: agi@v2.listbox.com
                Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 1:47 AM

                Terren Suydam wrote:

                >>>  

                Understanding goes far beyond mere knowledge - understanding 
*is* the ability to solve problems. One's understanding of a situation or 
problem is only as deep as one's (theoretical) ability to act in such a way as 
to achieve a desired outcome. 

                <<<  



                I disagree. A grandmaster of chess can explain his decisions 
and I will understand them. Einstein could explain his theory to other 
physicist(at least a subset) and they could understand it.



                I can read a proof in mathematics and I will understand it – 
because I only have to understand (= check) every step of the proof.



                Problem solving is much much more than only understanding.

                Problem solving is the ability to *create* a sequence of 
actions to change a system’s state from A to a desired state B.



                For example: Problem Find a path from A to B within a graph.

                An algorithm which can check a solution and can answer details 
about the solution is not necessarily able to find a solution.



                -Matthias






----------------------------------------------------------------

                      agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
                     
                     
               




----------------------------------------------------------------------

                agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
               
               




----------------------------------------------------------------------
                agi | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  
       



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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

Reply via email to