Mike, On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> Steve: You failed to respond to my assertion that if you can state it, > that it is mathematical (or could easily be turned into mathematical > notation paralleling the statement, and then manipulated using rules > appropriate to the notation), and if you can't state it, then you can't > possibly program it. > > “Line” ax = by + c “Number” This is atomic to math. “Shape” The interior area of f(x, y) that forms an enclosed area. “form” The constituents of something “Relationship” f where x=f(y) “Add” This is atomic to math. “Subtract” This is atomic to math. “Round” The nearest integer. “Square” To multiply by itself. there isn’t a single CONCEPT that can be stated mathematically. > *Mathematics is about stating concepts. * > Or logically. Not a single word in the language. Put down a geometric > square and it will not be remotely the same, or have the same infinite > sphere of reference, as the *concept* of square. > Obviously, we can't discuss concepts until we understand what they are, which is why we need some heavyweight R&D. > > And your ignorance/lack of imagination re the potential of programming, is > comparable to that re conceptual thought – which is the foundation of AGI. > *Can anyone else on this forum make any sense at all of what Mike has been saying? * Steve ======================== > *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:15 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of > Intelligence/AGI) > > > Mike, > > You failed to respond to my assertion that if you can state it, that it is > mathematical (or could easily be turned into mathematical notation > paralleling the statement, and then manipulated using rules appropriate to > the notation), and if you can't state it, then you can't possibly program > it. > > This fundamental, because without a good response, it reduces your > comments to ramblings. Either you are some sort of super-genius who sees > things that others can't, or you don't even understand the very concept of > math. How would YOU go about programming art, music, etc? > > Also, there is an issue with the concept of "complex". I am NOT saying > that you couldn't state all the wisdom needed to build an AGI on one side > of a sheet of paper (though I strongly suspect that it would take MUCH > more). What I AM saying is that from the last half-century of R&D, it will > take many more half-centuries to ever get there at the rate we are now > "progressing". Insanity has been defined by some as continuing to do the > same things while expecting a different result. Present AGI approaches seem > to fit that VERY well. > > I heartily agree with the idea of first "playing with something" before > starting with serious R&D, just to get a feel for it, see how difficult it > is to work on such things, etc. We now have had a half-century of that with > AI/AGI, and understand that AGI is NOT simple. Now, it is time to get > serious, as the rest of the world has already effectively written off AGI > R&D for very understandable reasons - it is populated by people who promise > the moon, and deliver nothing of practical value. Remember Japan's grand > 5th Generation Computing thrust? They DID produce a running demo of what > they were working on, and nothing more. > > Whatever comes next must NOT look at all like what has preceded, or it > won't be able to raise a dime. My concept of a research center is just good > R&D, and nothing more. > > While I think you are misguided, I do NOT want to discourage your efforts > to do an end-around and make AGI work. You could conceivably be right that > some simple numerological programming could produce the results you are > looking for. Whoever cracks the AGI "nut" will necessarily do so with > conviction, and one thing your postings have convinced me of is that you do > have conviction. > > Even if you are 100% correct, past history has already poisoned your well. > Such efforts are now completely unfundable. So, you will probably have to > work alone, and fund your efforts yourself. If you succeed, you won't have > enough money to commercialize it, so any success will be hollow. > > OTOH, you could write up a proposal for a proposed method, and probably at > least some technical support from a future research center. At least you > wouldn't be throwing your own money at it. If your approach succeeds to > commercialization, you would at least have a good job bringing it into the > world. > > So, stop arguing with those who would prospectively provide technical and > other support for your efforts. Sure they will waste millions of dollars > doing things that won't work, because that is what research is all about. > > Steve > =================== > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Steve, >> >> The most interesting thing here is how not just you but the great >> majority of AGI-ers have sold themselves on the idea of “AGI is ever so >> complex” not this time in the mathematical sense but in the human sense of >> “oooh, it’s ever so complicated....” >> >> Ben’s proceeding on that assumption – building an incredibly complex >> machine – without working out what problem it’s supposed to solve. >> >> Yet I’ve just given you classic contradictions. Shannon didn’t start >> complicated. Turing didn’t start complicated. >> >> I’ve also given you a true AGI problem. >> >> And you’ve ignored all this completely – true creatives break creative >> problems down into manageable parts. >> >> Well, if you wish to remain locked into your inferiority complex... >> >> P.S. As for your “maths is everything” – which is quite insane - there >> clearly is no reasoning with you. >> >> Just one simple example of how it is not – how you will think at first it >> is – but look closely and it is not. >> >> How should a Maradona or Messi plot his path with the ball when trying to >> dribble through a team of opposing players? >> >> That might look mathematical. It isn’t. Navigating through the world is >> for the most part NOT a maths. problem. Maths can be v. helpful, but it’s >> secondary. >> >> Design a font. Design a new turbine. Design a pattern. Ditto maths, if >> you need it at all, is purely auxiliary. >> >> >> *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:54 PM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of >> Intelligence/AGI) >> >> Mike, >> >> This appears to be the classical case of pearls before swine. EVERYTHING >> is mathematics of SOME sort, but you seem to think there is something in >> the 17th dimension or whatever that transcends notation. Hint: If you can't >> express it, you can't program it. If you can express it, then it is >> mathematics. >> >> Sure there may be things that transcend expression, I don't know of any, >> but whatever they may be, they will never ever be programmed. If AGI would >> require the programming of the inexpressible, than you might stop wasting >> your time on it right now. >> >> Even in the proposed multiverse, most of which is inaccessible to us, >> there is still a governing mathematics - from which the multiverse sprang. >> >> So, please return from the 17th dimension or wherever and let's at least >> agree that we are never ever going to program the inexpressible, and >> further, once something has been expressed, it can then be manipulated >> according to the rules of our reality, a process commonly referred to as >> mathematics. >> >> Steve >> ===================== >> On Thu,gi30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Being interested in the psychology of creativity, I am fascinated by >>> the ways in which people get creatively stuck – and the excuses they give >>> themselves for not tackling creative problems. This is a beauty: >>> >>> Steve: My assertion is that it is probably IMPOSSIBLE to understand many >>> of the aspects of intelligence (like self-organization) without heavy math, >>> wet lab experimentation, new scanning technology, and/or other >>> out-of-discipline research. If nothing else, the last half-century has >>> clearly shown that there are no easy answers, no "low hanging fruit" to >>> gather. Plenty of people just as smart as us have dashed their careers by >>> trying to "reason things out" without the advanced tools to simply examine >>> the solution. I have enough of a sense of history not to do the same. >>> >>> ”Wow, intelligence/the brain is so-o-o-o complex, dude....” >>> >>> Well, depends which brain – and which problems – you’re looking at. >>> >>> The classic mistake is to think of intelligence purely in terms of the >>> brain (or the intelligent machine/material). That’s like thinking of >>> photography purely in terms of cameras. >>> >>> You also – in fact first - have to look at the problems intelligence >>> tackles – just like you also – in fact first – have to look at the subjects >>> the photographer captures, and the problems of capturing those subjects. >>> >>> It’s so easy to get lost in technology. >>> >>> In fact, the simple nematode worm has only 200 neurons and yet manages >>> to solve all kinds of problems. >>> >>> And a slime mould has even less resources and yet also manages to solve >>> problems. >>> >>> Problems on the other side, can be thought of in extremely complex terms >>> - like how to tackle mathematical problems of everyone’s favourite (and >>> total irrelevance) – complexity. >>> >>> “Wow, complexity is so.o.o.o complex, dude...” >>> >>> Or you can think of – and represent tackling problems as ... negotiating >>> the forking paths of a maze. >>> >>> All problems *are* – or were – represented by programmers as negotiating >>> the forking paths of a maze – in the form of a flow chart. >>> >>> So if you want to start solving the problem of AGI, try and have ideas >>> about how a slime mould navigates a maze: >>> >>> >>> http://goose.ycp.edu/~kkleiner/fieldnaturalhistory/fnhimages/l12images/Maze-solving%20amoeboid.asp_files/cs_client_data/3636046.pdf >>> >>> Tackling a maze problem like that was how Shannon got AI started. >>> >>> Tackling a problem like this can get AGI started. >>> >>> Just remember - and this is EXTREMELY important - the slime mould has >>> a DIFFERENT problem to that of Shannon’s mechanical mouse. >>> >>> You have to look at the problem from the POV of the *slime mould* and >>> NOT the programmer – really put yourself physically in its place. >>> >>> Shannon’s mouse was effectively working with Shannon’s *full knowledge* >>> and *full overview* of mazes – the classic error all AGI-ers make. >>> >>> But a real world slime mould (or animal) doesn’t have an overview or >>> full knowledge of any maze. It just sees two walls and an opening. It >>> doesn’t know what lies beyond. It’s not doing mathematical computations. >>> It’s exploring unknown territory – just as all our evolutionary ancestors >>> have done throughout evolution – and all human creative.types have done. >>> >>> So how can a machine do that? >>> >>> Ideas, (and not excuses), Steve? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >> full employment. >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six > hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full > employment. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
