[Art]

With all due respect, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion or method of coding or performing their own experiments, especially since this entire subject is yet, unproven and certainly unrefined to any degree of readiness or acceptance.

Likewise, there is no correct or incorrect programming language for this "lofty" goal of AGI / ASI. Many like and use LISP, C+, C++, C#, Python, PHP, and several others. It is the intended end result that matters, not which vehicle provided the "transportation".

I also believe that no one person is going to put the nail in this beast called AGI. Working alone in one's private bedroom or lab is hardly conducive to creating the AGI or Singularity. A primitive cobbled apple computer in a garage by two visionaries of the past, perhaps, but this is a far different time for all of us. I would think that by putting the heads of like-minded people together and working toward a common goal should provide the best outcomes. No one is an island. Thus this Forum...

Best of luck...

[Don Patrick]

I did some work on common sense reasoning, using "symbolic" knowledge representation, and while it ultimately requires a broader learning system to acquire more common sense rules, reasoning mechanisms work just fine in symbolic space.

In my opinion the "symbol grounding problem" is a red herring, it is indicative of people's inability to think of the world in other terms than their human sensory experiences. Words are just a type of information, just as are sound and sight, imprinted as electrical + and - signals on a glob of meat or a metal disk. The difference is only the richness of information: Words may certainly be considered a crude summary of reality with much detail lost. But the relationships, logics and interactions between concepts are the same regardless with which type of information they are represented. Words are already grounded through the people that speak them, or we would be spouting words in random order in random contexts.

Either way, one should not stare oneself blind on the words themselves, or risk overlooking the meaning found between them.

[LOCKSUIT]

Yes Don! That is what I say too! Text has meaning data, tons. Humans invented each word for a reason, just like color. And the combinations of words as sequences and combinations of THOSE along with context is what can describe the sequences of the WORLD, that's what they are used for, they model the real world. Each word and phrase has a MEANING that can be said in text - like guarding means 'to fight aliens off from a kid'. All my knowledge is put into text actually, sure I know visual knowledge and sure enough my notes evoke back my visual thoughts I self discovered or learned online, but text is easy to write than draw and itt works enough to be a powerful AGI system is what I concluded. The only missing sensory in such AGI is...vision. Sound is covered already by text. As for touch, that I barely use, and vision covers it anyway. Of course more sensory = more ASI, and real world R&D will require real world sensories like touch, but again, text can cover its but for now.

[LOCKSUIT]

^^^

just like humans invented color names...different languages have their 'needed' words they made up...phrases count as 'words' in a sense too......nodes

[LOCKSUIT]

Further, colornames are words! Guys!, it's not just colornames humans invented, it's for all the word that were useful!!!

Ladder, steps, step, tread, rubber, side, rear, front, bottom, underneath, go, fetch, return, ball, cube, food, fries...man/woman

red, blue, green, yellow

[HS]

Words are bite sized peices of experiance. They represent those thinkable bits of reality. Without the full human experiance of reality words would lose meaning. They would only be patterns of shape or sound. The vocabulary of an AI would be limited by the ammount of sensory data it can aquire and pair with symbols. Then if it has the sensory data, why not use it?

[AndyGoode]

I also believe that no one person is going to put the nail in this beast called AGI. Working alone in one's private bedroom or lab is hardly conducive to creating the AGI or Singularity. A primitive cobbled apple computer in a garage by two visionaries of the past, perhaps, but this is a far different time for all of us.

What gives you this impression? AGI hasn't even begun as a field with any beginning principles, which means the field of AGI is wide open, awaiting new discoveries or ideas from anyone to get it started. Anyone can produce ideas without a computer, program, or a team of people. Only if someone gets hung up on the belief that AGI must be based on an existing type of hardware (e.g., computer, neural network) or existing type of software (e.g., algorithm, data structure) does that person become convinced that an individual is worthless for producing a breakthrough.

(p. 184)
Immunity Not Granted

In the marketplace, as untold millions have discovered, the
consequences of acting impulsively by joining the actions of the
crowd can be catastrophic. The so-called lemming effect (one
person following another over the edge of a financial cliff) has
fascinated students of human nature for centuries. The condi-
tion of your Self-Discipline Habit is severely tested when the
crowd is heading in one direction and your intellect and/or com-
mon sense tells you that it's the wrong direction. That's when
you must exercise the self-discipline to override the momentary
comfort of being in the mainstream. When you're tempted to
act impulsively in a situation like this, remind yourself that
the mainstream doesn't do very well over the long term. Civi-
lization progresses as a result of the actions of a few great minds;
the mainstream then simply goes along for the ride--and usu-
ally too late, at that.

Ringer, Robert J. 1990. Million Dollar Habits. New York, New York: Wynwood Press.

(p. 10)
   The final article, "Thinking About the Brain," was written
by Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of the structure of DNA who
had by then turned his talents to studying the brain. Crick
argued that in spite of a steady accumulation of detailed knowl-
edge about the brain, how the brain worked was still a profound
mystery. Scientists usually don't write about what they don't
know, but Crick didn't care. He was like the boy pointing to the
emperor with no clothes. According to Crick, neuroscience was
a lot of data without a theory. His exact words were, "what is con-
spicuously lacking is a broad framework of ideas." To me this
was the British gentleman's way of saying, "We don't have a clue
how this thing works." It was true then, and it's still true today.

Hawkins, Jeff. 2004. On Intelligence. New York: Times Books.

[LOCKSUIT]

I agree.

Lock doesn't follow the code/math/ANN way....I work on my own white-box. It does have ANN terminology, and very few math to it, and even lesser code to it, as code is just to code it. The efficiency of AGI matters yes, as it IS AGI, this is done in the 'idea', doing it in the code can be done by anyone later.

I agree, talk about what you don't know so you can realize what you do know.