From: Michael Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 19 2005 - 17:55:55 MDT
Phil Goetz wrote:
> I thought it was a pretty good list, except that it
> left out control theory and signal processing.
I agree with you in principle, but these things look less
important than they used to. It's funny, once upon a time
I used to be in favour of explicitly specifying peripheral
complexity like that and leaving the core, important design
complexity to 'emergence'. These days I realise the importance
of getting the core complexity right and would rather that
the AGI self-generated the peripheral stuff. I agree that
familiarity with these and some other engineering areas help
with designing priors and debugging induction, but if you're
on a tight study time budget I wouldn't give them priority.
>> How about describing these 7th and 8th communities?
>> I thought it was a pretty good list, except that it
>> left out control theory and signal processing.
> Oh, and dynamic systems theory, as in the work of
> Scott Kelso, Esther Thalen, & Walter Freeman.
The only paper I can think of off hand that makes a
semi-reasonable case for dynamic systems theory as the
basis for AGI is 'Dynamics and Cognition' by Timothy van
Gelder. And he didn't have any good reasons why one would
/want/ to use that as a basis for AGI design, only some
vague arguments as to why it should be possible and how it
might be useful for analysing the brain.
> Perl! Perl, I say! Edited with VIM, on a VT100!
Fools! Clearly the one true way to implement an AGI is by
writing in Threaded Intercal with Teco!
* Michael Wilson
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT