From: Michael Wilson (mwdestinystar@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 07:26:52 MST
> I was looking over the Singularity Institute page on becoming a seed AI
> Programmer the other day and I couldn't help but feel that there is an
> overwhelming bias towards bayesian reasoning and I have noticed that a
> lot of contributors to sl4 hail this as all-powerful - should they?
I was looking over the CERN page on becoming a particle physicist the
other day and I couldn't help but feel that there is an overwhelming
bias towards the quantum field theories of physics and I have noticed
that a lot of contributors to sci.physics.particle hail this as an
evident truth - should they?
> Check out this paper by Bart Kosko (clearly a 'brilliant' individual)
> and his other work -
>
> http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/ProbabilityMonopoly.pdf
> http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/
Check out this paper by Mark McCutcheon (clearly a 'special' individual)
and his other work -
http://www.thefinaltheory.com
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF
> I couldn't help noticing also that generally there are gaps in the
> plan. As a philosopher I saw the ommission of any philosophy of mind -
> crucial to any AI discussions and for any 'deep understanding' of the
> issues actually outlined - strange...
I couldn't help noticing also that generally there are gaps in the
research agenda. As a psychotherapist I saw the ommission of any theory
of motives - crucial to any understanding of why some particles want to
interact and others prefer to remain aloof - strange...
> I have witnessed in the past prejudice against philosophy and
> philosophers here too (apology already accepted of course)
I have witnessed in the past prejudice against amateurs who make
up plausible-sounding theories of matter based on 'reflection'
without studying experimental evidence or classical physics
(apology already accepted of course).
> and I wondered if the project of creating AI is being pushed
> forward before it is ready.
and I wondered if it is appropriate to research fusion energy
before we understand why some materials emitt phlogiston and
others absorb it.
> Now I believe that the singularity is inevitable and I am not
> suggesting that the institute is wrong,
Now I believe that a grand unified theory of physics is inevitable
and I am not suggesting that CERN is wrong,
> just that creating an Artificial General Intelligence, needs more
> emphasis on the general. Any thoughts?
just that physicists should spend less time fiddling with particle
accelerators and more time going on expeditions to the Himalayas to
discover themselves. Any thoughts?
* Michael Wilson
___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:51 MST