On Apr 6, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
The fact that the vast majority of AGI theory is pulled out of /dev/
ass notwithstanding, your above characterization would appear to
reflect your limitations which you have chosen to project onto the
broader field of AGI research. Just because most AI researchers
are misguided fools and you do not fully understand all the
relevant theory does not imply that this is a universal (even if it
were).
Ad hominem. Shameful.
Ad hominem? Well, of sorts I suppose, but in this case it is the
substance of the argument so it is a reasonable device. I think I
have met more AI cranks with hare-brained pet obsessions with respect
to the topic or academics that are beating a horse that died thirty
years ago than AI researchers that are actually keeping current with
the subject matter. Pointing out the embarrassing foolishness of the
vast number of those that claim to be "AI researchers" and how it
colors the credibility of the entire field is germane to the discussion.
As for you specifically, assertions like "Artificial Intelligence
research does not have a credible science behind it" in the absence of
substantive support (now or in the past) can only lead me to believe
that you either are ignorant of relevant literature (possible) or you
do not understand all the relevant literature and simply assume it is
not important. As far as I have ever been able to tell, theoretical
psychology re-heats a very old idea while essentially ignoring or
dismissing out of hand more recent literature that could provide
considerable context when (re-)evaluating the notion. This is a fine
example of part of the problem we are talking about.
AGI *is* mathematics?
Yes, applied mathematics. Is there some other kind of non-
computational AI? The mathematical nature of the problem does not
disappear when you wrap it in fuzzy abstractions it just gets, well,
fuzzy. At best the science can inform your mathematical model, but in
this case the relevant mathematics is ahead of the science for most
purposes and the relevant science is largely working out the specific
badly implemented wetware mapping to said mathematics.
I'm sorry, but if you can make a statement such as this, and if you
are already starting to reply to points of debate by resorting to ad
hominems, then it would be a waste of my time to engage.
Probably a waste of my time as well if you think this is primarily a
science problem in the absence of a discernible reason to characterize
it as such.
I will just note that if this point of view is at all widespread -
if there really are large numbers of people who agree that "AGI is
mathematics, not science" - then this is a perfect illustration of
just why no progress is being made in the field.
Assertions do not manufacture fact.
J. Andrew Rogers
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=98631122-712fa4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
