--- "Mark H. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I imagine the following may have already been considered, > nevertheless: It would seem constructive to undertake an > analysis of breakthroughs in various fields (e.g. engineering, > art, chemistry) to search for patterns that might be > replicable. A general example of what I mean by a "pattern" > would be, "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." Examples of > patterns that such an analysis might uncover could include > patterns of formal logic, the novel application in one field of > a structure established in another field, the retrieval of > insights from historical theories or practices that were once > competitive, but were found inadequate and long forgotten, > etc. An analysis of such patterns and the identification of > meta-patterns would seem to require broad familiarity with the > various disciplines in which the breakthroughs occurred; > however, the work of identifying the patterns of specific > breakthroughs, which might require extensive and deep knowledge > in the respective fields, could be divided amongst various > experts of various fields. Perhaps something like this would > be worth adding to the agenda of the AI Impact Initiative or > some similar interdisciplinary body. > > -Mark
What fields would you consider analogous to AI? We can observe some general patterns. 1. Many great discoveries were made by accident. (If the results were expected, it wouldn't be great). 2. Many great insights are initially rejected by peers. (How long does it take to award a Nobel prize?) -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
