Thomas,
The argument I presented is *not* a restatement of Rice's theorem,
because the concept of the size of a scientific theory is not something
that maps onto the parallel concept of the size of a functions,
algorithm or program.
In order to map theory-size onto algorithm-size it would be necessary to
PRESUPPOSE the answer to the question that is driving these
considerations about scientific theories.
Richard Loosemore
Thomas McCabe wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas McCabe wrote:
Does NASA have a coherent response to the moon hoax theory?
This is completely uncalled for. No particular theory of AGI at this time
disserves to be compared to the moon hoax conspiracy theory or
alternatively, they all do. :-)
Obviously, Richard's theories are not as nonsensical as the moon hoax
nutcases. It was simply the first example that sprang to mind.
Of course
not; it isn't worth their time. This was used against NASA by the moon
hoaxers for years, until independent astronomers started posting
rebuttals. You must show that your theory is credible, or at least
reasonably popular, before people will take the time to refute it.
Popularity is irrelevant.
Popularity, of course, is not the ultimate judge of accuracy. But are
you seriously claiming that how many people support a theory is
totally uncorrelated with the accuracy of said theory? Even after the
theory has been debated for years?
While I am not an AGI researcher I occasionally
notice where the weak spots in various theories are and speak up
accordingly. There is no way I consider Richard Loosemore to be some kind
of crackpot. His theories appear as valid as any I have read from
Eliezer.
If you look at Richard Loosemore's blog (http://susaro.com/), you will
essentially find an extremely-long-winded restatement of Rice's
Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem), and a
non-canonical redefinition of the word "complexity". This is not a
great deal of intellectual content, considering the volume of
Richard's posts. Compare one of his five-page posts to, say, this
statement of a general workaround by Eliezer:
"Rice's Theorem states that it is not possible to distinguish whether an
arbitrary computer program implements any function, including, say, simple
multiplication. And yet, despite Rice's Theorem, modern chip engineers
create computer chips that implement multiplication. Chip engineers select,
from all the vast space of possibilities, only those chip designs which they
can understand."
Unless I missed a major development Eliezer's FAI theory is not
at a point where its validity can be reasonably confidently judged.
Actually a true pet theory by your definition might well be the one
breakthrough wild idea that turns out to work. I think it is much too early
to be dismissive of anything beyond obvious nonsense.
If fai-logistics is not in fact working off Eliezer's ideas then exactly
what is the group using as its starting basis?
- samantha
-------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------
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=101816851-9a120b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
