bonjour à tous question:is there a science behind AGI? my feeling and thinking are self-organisation,holism,contextual-syntatic-semantic and finally base on topos response:our univers(multi,...) is meta-meta-meta-mathematical cordialement votre bruno
----- Message d'origine ---- De : Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : [email protected] Envoyé le : Lundi, 7 Avril 2008, 16h26mn 01s Objet : Re: [singularity] Vista/AGI 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/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com _____________________________________________________________________________ Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr ------------------------------------------- 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
