J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
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
Let's come to the point then.
You have taken the view that when I make a statement like "Artificial
Intelligence research does not have a credible science behind it" I am
doing so because I am purely ignorant of the science that is actually
obvious to anyone who has been keeping up with the field.
Putting aside the fact that this is (as I said) quite insulting at a
personal level, what exactly is the "science" behind artificial
intelligence research?
Science is the study of something. It involves building theoretical
models of the phenomena under study, then a comparison of the
predictions from those models with the phenomena. It should also make
new, non-obvious predictions that can be confirmed, to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the theories.
What, in this case, was studied? What theories? What confirmations?
And then, in what ways was this science applied to the engineering
endeavor that is called Artificial Intelligence?
You seem to find the existence of this science so obvious that the very
obviousness justifies you in calling someone ignorant for questioning
it: please outline this obvious thing.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
