John, Quick response because I need to set out what you’ve almost grasped in a fuller, more systematic way, even here.
Yours is a v. smart response. What is commonly called language, but should in fact be known as conceptual thinking, is indeed “general high-level thinking” - and is a totally different and separate higher LEVEL of thought to the far lower, specific levels of maths and logic. Steve’s response was v. useful, because it shows that he like most people sees no significant difference between logic, maths and language/conceptual thought – they are more or less “alternatives” to him & our culture – you can use one or the other. Not so. Conceptual thought is totally beyond computers at the moment. It is truly general thought - the essential medium of general intelligence/AGI. If you can’t do concepts you can’t do AGI. And the best demonstration of this is by comparing concepts with their mathematical equivalents. Concepts have vastly, infinitely broad spheres of reference by comparison. A mathematical square is always a mathematical square. A conceptual square can be a square circle or a town square that never was square or a fragmented square or.a square snake .... – and in fact can embrace ***any conceivable deformation and transformation** of the mathematical square. Concepts are multiform/infiniform – mathematical and logical objects are uniform. Concepts enable us to do AGI - to adapt creatively to an everchanging, evernew multiform/infiniform real world. But more later... And my From: John G. Rose Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:58 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of Intelligence/AGI) Steve, Your last response to Mike one of the best I’ve seen, generously, thoughtfully and carefully crafted it was a pleasure to read. Unfortunately you were stepping into his trap and wound up here like everyone else. Since Mike is so persistent I’ve tried to grasp what he is saying. My thoughts: 1) People that don’t know math still do math as a general intelligence. 2) The human mind is a powerful mechanism that possibly transcends known mathematics. 3) A typical non-math savvy person is executing advanced mathematics unbeknownst. 4) Mike Tintner is assiduously pointing to these advanced mechanisms, those that are generally and mathematically known, and unknown with much overlap. As AGI’ers we know there are things we can’t figure out. Mike knows that. He’s using his own advanced mathematical execution engine to try to figure out some of the same stuff that we are trying to figure out. Going out on a limb here: Humans have been around for millennia trying to figure out how it all works, the world, humankind, the purpose, the predictions using their own presupplied intelligence engine of the mind without mathematics and computers and have at times in history arrived at “correct” answers to questions that we are still trying to establish the proof of now, scientifically. Scientists are rationality bound, as are engineers. Sometimes there is not a “right” computational model and you can throw Occam’s Razor out the window. A splatting of smattering might cover it then melting away revealing elements of truth underneath a complex explanation for simplicity. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] 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 ======================== AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
