Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was no such evidence: Biosphere 2 had almsot nothing in the way of
complexity, compared with AGI systems, and it was controlled by trial and
error in such a way that it failed.
Hey,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, ya dummy ;-) ... I wasn't criticising the Biosphere project itself!
Ah! Fair enough, I misunderstood you, then.
I was criticising your use of this as an example of how complexity can be
overcome in an engineered
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, ya dummy ;-) ... I wasn't criticising the Biosphere project itself!
Ah! Fair enough, I misunderstood you, then.
I was criticising your use of this as an example of how complexity can be
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are arguing past each other.
That was the impression I had, yes.
The reference you cite talks only about complicatedness --- as in, the
opposite of simplicity. In other words, the common usage of complexity.
Okay, well, take any nontrivial engineered system and you'll see
complexity being overcome by intuition plus trial and error. Here's a
couple of very good posts by someone who designs microwave electronics
for a living:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again. AI. No. Engineers do not work just by intuition or
intuition by trial and error. Please read your own link . . . .
I never said they worked by _just_ those things; but I suspect we may
simply have different
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are arguing past each other.
That was the impression I had, yes.
The reference you cite talks only about complicatedness --- as in, the
opposite of simplicity. In other words, the common
-
From: Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Richard's four criteria and the Novamente Pet
Brain
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again. AI. No. Engineers do not work
Heh, didn't think I'd see Richard copying Eliezer's little pun from
that time. Ah well, can't say I didn't try.
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guided trial and error, yes. Random, wishful thinking trial and error, no.
Trial and error is best treated like scientific hypotheses and experiments.
If you're rational about it, it is a stellar method. If you're just
Jim Bromer wrote:
Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... your tangled(*) system might be just as vulnerable
to the problem as those thousands upon thousands of examples of complex
systems that are *not* understandable...
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has *ever* used intuitive
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
Richard Loosemore wrote:
2) Even if you do come back to me and say that the symbols inside
Novamente all contain all four characteristics, I can only say so what
a second time ;-). The question I was asking when I laid down those
four characteristics was
Richard,
Question: How many systems do you know of in which the system elements
are governed by a mechanism that has all four of these, AND where the system
as a whole has a large-scale behavior that has been shown (by any method of
showing except detailed simulation of the system) to arise
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question: How many systems do you know of in which the system elements
are governed by a mechanism that has all four of these, AND where the system
as a whole has a large-scale behavior that has been shown (by any
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
Question: How many systems do you know of in which the system elements
are governed by a mechanism that has all four of these, AND where the system
as a whole has a large-scale behavior that has been shown (by any method of
showing except detailed simulation of
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question: How many systems do you know of in which the system elements
are governed by a mechanism that has all four of these, AND where the system
as a whole has a large-scale behavior that has
No: I am specifically asking for some system other than an AGI system,
because I am looking for an external example of someone overcoming the
complex systems problem.
The specific criteria you've described would seem to apply mainly to living
systems ... and we just don't have that much
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly, the failure of the Biosphere experiment is evidence in your favor.
There, the scientists failed to predict basic high-level properties of
a pretty simple
closed ecosystem, based on their knowledge of the
Engineering in the real world is nearly always a mixture of rigor and
intuition. Just like analysis of complex biological systems is.
AIEe! NO! You are clearly not an engineer because a true engineer
just wouldn't say this.
Engineering should *NEVER* involve intuition. Engineering
Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly, the failure of the Biosphere experiment is evidence in your favor.
There, the scientists failed to predict basic high-level properties of
a pretty simple
closed ecosystem, based on their
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Engineering in the real world is nearly always a mixture of rigor and
intuition. Just like analysis of complex biological systems is.
AIEe! NO! You are clearly not an engineer because a true engineer
just
I don't agree with Mark Waser that we can engineer the complexity out
of intelligence.
I agree with Richard Loosemore that intelligent systems are
intrinsically complex systems in the Santa Fe Institute type sense
However, I don't agree with Richard as to the *extent* of the
complexity problem.
Engineering should *NEVER* involve intuition. Engineering does not
require
exact answers as long as you have error bars but the second that you
revert
to intuition and guesses, it is *NOT* engineering anymore.
Well, we may be using the word intuition differently.
Given your examples, we
Rules of thumb are not intuition ... but applying them requires
intuition... unlike applying rigorous methods...
However even the most rigorous science requires rules of thumb (hence
intuition) to do the problem set-up before the calculations start...
ben
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Mark
I don't agree with Mark Waser that we can engineer the complexity out
of intelligence.
I agree with Richard Loosemore that intelligent systems are
intrinsically complex systems in the Santa Fe Institute type sense
I hate to do this but . . . .
Richard's definition of complexity is *NOT* the
I said and repeat that we can engineer the complexity out of intelligence
in the Richard Loosemore sense.
I did not say and do not believe that we can engineer the complexity out
of intelligence in the Santa Fe Institute sense.
OK, gotcha...
Yeah... IMO, complexity in the sense you ascribe
I just want to make one observation on this whole thread, since I have
no time for anything else tonight.
People are riding roughshod over the things that I have actually said.
In some cases this involves making extrapolations to ideas that people
THINK that I was saying, but which I have
Actually, I have to clarify that my knowledge of this totally
digressive topic is about
12 years obsolete. Maybe it's all done differently now...
However, one wouldn't bother to use this formula if the soil was too
different
in composition from the soil around Vegas. So in reality the
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was no such evidence: Biosphere 2 had almsot nothing in the way of
complexity, compared with AGI systems, and it was controlled by trial and
error in such a way that it failed.
Hey, great example of how to
Richard,
I've been too busy to participate in this thread, but, now I'll chip
in a single comment,
anyways... regarding the intersection btw your thoughts and Novamente's
current work...
You cited the following 4 criteria,
- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored information about what it was
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
I've been too busy to participate in this thread, but, now I'll chip
in a single comment,
anyways... regarding the intersection btw your thoughts and Novamente's
current work...
You cited the following 4 criteria,
- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored
Richard,
How does this relate to the original context in which I cited this list
of four characteristics? It loks like your comments are completely outside
the original context, so they don't add anything of relevance.
I read the thread and I think my comments are relevant
Let me bring
32 matches
Mail list logo
