J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I wonder why some people think there is "one true path" to AGI ... I
strongly suspect there are many...
Like I stated at the beginning, *most* models are at least theoretically
valid. Of course, tractable engineering of said models is another
issue. :-) Engineering tractability in the context of computer science
and software engineering is almost purely an applied mathematics effort
to the extent there is any "theory" to it, and science has a very
limited capacity to inform it.
If someone could describe, specifically, how to science is going to
inform this process given the existing body of theoretical work, I would
have no problem with the notion. My objections were pragmatic.
Now hold on just a minute.
Yesterday you directed the following accusation at me:
> [Your assertion] "Artificial Intelligence research does
> not have a credible science behind it" ... [leads] 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.
You *vilified* the claim that I made, and implied that I could only say
such a thing out of ignorance, so I challenged you to explain what
exactly was the science behind artificial intelligence.
But instead of backing up your remarks, you make no response at all to
the challenge, and then, in the comments to Ben above, you hint that you
*agree* that there is no science behind AI ("... science has a very
limited capacity to inform it"), it is just that you think there should
not be, or does not need to be, any science behind it.
So let me summarize:
1) I make a particular claim.
2) You state that I can only say such a thing if I am ignorant.
3) You refuse to provide any arguments against the claim.
4) You then tacitly agree with the original claim.
Oh, and by the way, a small point of logic. If someone makes a claim
that "There is no science behind artificial intelligence", this is a
claim about the *nonexistence* of something, so you cannot demand that
the person produce evidence to support the nonexistence claim. The onus
is entirely on you to provide evidence that there is a science behind
AI, if you believe that there is, not on me to demonstrate that there is
none.
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
