I'm still relatively new to the field so of course i do not put a lot of strength behind my opinions. I think there are some clarifications here that could be useful, although it is highly improbable that you need them.
My overall argument is completely vindicated by what you say here. (My wording was sometimes ambiguous in that last email, I confess, but what I have been targeting is AIXI as proof, not AIXI as actual working system). I only care about where AIXI gets the power of its proof, so it does not matter to me whether a practical implementation [sic] of AIXI would actually need to build a cognitive system. It is not important whether it would do so in practice, because if the proof says that AIXI is allowed to build a complete cognitive system in the course of solving the IQ test problem, then what is the meaning of "AIXI would equal any other intelligence starting with the same initial knowledge set" .... well, yeah, of course it would, if it was allowed to build something as sophisticated as that other intelligence! It is like me saying "I can prove that I can make a jet airliner with my bare hands" ..... and then when you delve into the proof you find that my definition of "make" includes the act of putting in a phone call to Boeing and asking them to deliver one. Such a proof is completely valueless.
It is rather vacuous that AIXI's capability to (to some degree) simulate another agent's [intellect] means it is on par with that agent['s intellect]. However, AIXI also proves the antecedent and it is not merely an assumption. This is different from s ilar circular arguments (in disguise). On top of this, it proves that we can do better than this intellect and that we may do optimal given limited data (in terms of what can be done given the data). I think your example is a strawman argument here. What is counter-intuitive is the definition of 'make' I believe. If you allow this to fall within the definition, and take care to formulate a strict definition and not one of varrying strength then any path is of equal "worth". Not everything is able to phone Boeing and it is therefor not valueluess to know it is able to - it does contribute information and it is merely a choice of scale. What would you say that in your process of building the plane, your observation of birds and the wind led you to think in similar manners, and not nec. exactly the same, as the Wright's? If we do not allow a being to even implicitely ( i.e. without nec. realizing that it merely mimics another agent's train of thought, albeit I do not personally consider it relevant), or having the capabilities, to simulate that of another agent, in the world where every possible agent does (or has) existed, any additional agents are condemned. AIXI is valueless.
QED. Richard Loosemore. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
