This doesn't have to take long! Let's just go with 'fundamental 'assumptions' as a concept in AGI.
1) Your take on me. You have not captured my approach. I would state it like this: I make no fundamental assumptions other than the universal 'assumption' that the traditional methods of scientific exploration apply to AGI and that AGI is not especially exempted from being originated by the standard practice of science. If I said "Like everywhere else in science, AGI will only arise and be scientifically proved through application of all of the empirical and theoretical facets of the physical sciences working together, as usual". Can you see my approach, as described by me, is not what you described it to be? I have no fundamental assumption of the kind you claim me to have. if you asked me I wouldn't be able to describe them. 2) My take on you. Let me state your position: In relation to the creation of AGI (meaning to be clarified), it is your position that making fundamental assumptions (like 'design choices') is part of the process, and that these fundamental assumptions are not scientific verification or review except insofar as an AGI project critically depending on the truth of the assumptions succeeds or fails (as per the 'narrow AGI' graph, for example). That is, the AGI project, as you define it, is literally an experiment on a hypothesis that your 'fundamental assumptions' are true. In your case, the fundamental assumptions: "AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a mind. The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive science (and epistemology). AGI is about figuring out what human-level cognition entails and then engineering mechanisms to implement this." (as portrayed in the linked document). Without delving into what 'brain', 'AGI' and 'mind' are, Is this a fair/accurate account of your approach? --------------------- We're quite a ways from a final account of each other, but you get the idea. And so forth. If this were to continue, then the process would very quickly hone in on the differences and similarities. When reading the words, you may experience a 'feeling' of confirmation or of doubt. You get to learn about how scientifically sound your position is, or is not. You get a chance to work out what your presuppositions are and how they may be undermining your AGI goal. The key note? It's a respectful, civil interaction in which both sides get to learn about the other and themselves. Leave it there, I guess. cheers colin On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:46 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Colin, while I agree that steel-manning is a great strategy.. > > a) I don’t really have the time to do this – too busy creating AGI… > > b) I’ve never come close to understanding your arguments and/or disagree > with some of your fundamental assumptions > > Best, > > Peter > > > > *From:* Colin Hales <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 1, 2019 5:03 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] ARGH!!! > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:37 PM Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > > AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a > mind. The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive science (and > epistemology).. > > > > AGI is about figuring out what human-level cognition entails and then > engineering mechanisms to implement this. > > > > [image: Preview image] > <https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/agi-checklist-30297a4f5c1f> > > *AGI Checklist - Intuition Machine - Medium > <https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/agi-checklist-30297a4f5c1f>* > > Any AGI must at a minimum possess a core set of cognitive abilities — as a > simple description of human intelligence will confirm. > <https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/agi-checklist-30297a4f5c1f> > > medium.com > <https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/agi-checklist-30297a4f5c1f> > > [image: Mixmax] > <https://mixmax.com/r/5b7c8377f39ad103ce2c8171?ref=Website%20preview> > > > > > > > > I know you have a long history with this and I am quite familiar with your > perspective. We encountered each other in 2002 when it was in whatever > counts as a 'heyday' in this. Since then, the usual result of these forum > discussions has descended into the chest-thumping of opinions that is rife > on social media these days. Zero or very little actual progress results, > where I'd characterise progress as the changing or developing of attitudes > as a result of reasoned mutual engagement with arguments based on evidence. > > > > So I'd like to do something different this time. We're part of the 'old > guard' and it's up to us to demonstrate how an intellectual discussion can > be fruitfully conducted to advance the topic in question. So I'd like to > run an experiment. I'd like us to 'steel-man' each other. This is where: > > > > 1) I do my best to express your perspective to you. > > 2) You do your best to express my perspective back to me. > > > > This is the way for differences to be understood in a manner that can be > fruitfully discussed. For what this means, see this video at exactly > 1:57:15 to 1:58:30. It is an answer to a query from the audience at the end > of sam harris's first 'book club'. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_5N0N-61Tg > > > > I think it would be very instructive. Would like like to try? > > > > cheers > > colin > > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Ma389553e28584fd632b315ab> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M3ed114d82fe1dcf92508802d Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
