[time 166] Philosophy of science and other distractions ;)

Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:59:22 -0400

> Ben,
> The tree is not built but grown. The concepts, the language, the tools
> are all derived from the hard work of many before us.

Well, most of them are of course, but we get to make some of them up on
our own, which to me is the fun part!

> There are no quantum leaps in the history of innovation, all scientific
> revolutions must connect what was known in the past to what is learned
> in the future. We only reinterpret that past, but do not dispose of it.

This to me is extreme; when Einsten invented GR he made a "quantum leap"
... the emergence of QM was likewise.

I hope that my work at Intelligenesis is going to be a quantum leap in AI
technology, i.e. the first really intelligent machine. Are we using tools
by others? Of course. But, that doesn't detract from the radicality and
of what we are doing.

The nature of these quantum leaps in knowledge is captured well in the term
EMERGENCE. The tools are there already, but when you arrange them a new way,
and add a few new ingredients -- Zing! -- a whole new pattern pops out of
the whole!

And I think we are on the verge of another "quantum leap" in physics. "We"
the scientific community, not necessarily the 5 or however many of us on
this listserver.
The tools needed to cause this leap to emerge are in my opinion available.
out how to piece them together is not easy, and like all great achievements
a lot of psychological strength and self-criticism as well as knowledge,
intelligence and mental

> The programming metaphor you speak of is also apparent to me.
> A prototype is rarely put into production.
> But the production program for "consciousness" and other core
> concepts is not "as" trivial as designing an artificial arm or leg.

I am lost in the sea of metaphor here!
I am actually building a production program for intelligence and by extension
consciousness, at Intelligenesis. Or trying anyway ;)
But that is not what you are referring to.... We are talking about
building a physics

I feel like we're arguing and I don't even know what we're arguing about!!!

I guess you've been trying to get a point across and it doesn't seem to be
sinking into my

Let me be clear on what my goal is.
What I would like to achieve is a derivation from fundamental pregeometric
principles of
a unified physics theory, incorporating the Standard Model, GR, and the
mind-matter relationship.
I think it's quite possible that Hitoshi's ideas will be important in this
process; and that Matti's will be too, although I understand his less
thoroughly because the
math is less familiar to me. This is a spare-time pursuit for me, and my
real job (being CTO and
Chairman of Intelligenesis) takes about 80 hours a week, so I can't give
this the attention I
would like to, but I am pleased to have found a new community of
co-conspirators on this
slightly crazy quest of mind ;)

With this in mind, could you try to encapsulate as briefly & clearly as
possible what it is that you're
trying to tell me that is relevant to this goal of mine, that I'm not
absorbing properly?
Maybe it's hopeless, but give it one more try.
Perhaps you do not feel that my goal is the right goal -- if so I certainly
respect this, but I have
arrived at this goal through years of deep thought and it's probably not
worth trying to talk me out
of it!!!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST