RE: Is generalisation a limit to intelligence?

From: Ben Goertzel (
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 14:39:13 MST

What your comments suggest to me, Eliezer, is that we need a mathematics
of emergence...

Not an original conclusion of course, but a new perspective on this


> > However, we lack a quantitative science that can tell us
> exactly how quickly
> > the error rate approaches
> > zero as the memory (&, in a real-time situation, processing
> power able to
> > exploit this memory)
> > approaches infinity. Eliezer and I differ in that I believe
> such a science
> > will someday exist ;>
> > We also differ in that he intuits this error rate approaches zero faster
> > than I intuit it does.
> Let us also note that there is a single cause behind both of my beliefs; I
> believe that generalizing is a creative and intelligent task, which to me
> means there's room for arbitrarily brilliant solutions. The error rate
> approaches zero very quickly, not for mathematical reasons, but because
> someone came up with a brilliant solution - or a thousand different
> brilliant solutions for a thousand different domains. Each different
> solution has a different mathematical behavior, if it has any mathematical
> behavior at all. The act of coming up with a brilliant solution changes
> whatever mathematical behavior previously existed, and will not be a
> continuation of the previous curve. This drama is played out on so many
> different levels of the system - mathematics is so easily broken by the
> application of intelligence, at any level - as to render it likely that
> mathematics will simply not be used at all.
> -- -- -- -- --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT