Mike and John, I think part of the problem here is that people aren't *underlining*critical words in what they are saying, so that messages gets misunderstood.
Mike is saying that no *presently known* mathematical methods can explain GI, and I agree. However, to say that *mathematics itself* is fundamentally unable to express the workings of GI seems absolutely absurd, because ANYTHING you could possibly understand enough to program can be expressed mathematically - including completely variable mechanisms like self-organization. If Mike is saying that you can't program GI, then he needs to transform his apparent feeling into words that make that point, which so far he has COMPLETELY failed to do. I think Mike means to say that with *presently known methods* you can't program GI, and I think most of us would agree with THAT. However... *The whole reason this forum is here is find ways to blow away the present limitations in math, logic, programming methodologies, etc., whatever they might be, to programming GI. Alternatively, if this is somehow impossible, then that point needs to be proved. * A source of long-term mild frustration is the *gradual weakening of computer languages*. To illustrate, the original Kemeny and Kurtz BASIC started out with matrix operators built into the language, and has gradually gone downhill until .NET has finally stripped out everything that stupid C can't do, so that to my mind, it is nothing of BASIC left. Many early versions of BASIC even allowed the run-time creation and execution of BASIC statements. Some early languages like IT (Internal Translator on the IBM-650) had some wild things, like dynamic equivalence where variables, array elements, and whole arrays could be overlaid in memory as program logic found useful. Many CPUs had indirect addressing, which greatly facilitated having code work on whatever you wanted it to work on. Some machines like the GE/Honeywell 600/6000 series had multi-level indirect addressing, character-level indirect addressing, and many other things like the "Repeat Double" instruction with which you could *create your own instructions that would run at hard-wired speeds*. All these things subtly shifted the boundary of what it was "programmable". I sense that Mike has fallen into the trap of thinking that a variable refers to a particular thing, e.g. that the *value* is variable, rather than the *item* selected being variable, or even an operator in some part of another expression. Of course, arrays provide for the variability in selection, but then people start thinking in arrays rather than in variables. Similarly, Mike thinks that a mathematical expression must refer to the concrete things he thinks variables must refer to, rather than referring to things like the methodology of the creation of other expressions, etc. 808X is not THE worst architecture in history (there WERE some worse ones, e.g. the 4004), but it is definitely in the competition. This has narrowed the minds of an entire generation of programmers. Sure, there are horrendous ways of programming around the absurd limitations of 808X architecture, but they don't teach many of these techniques even in college, because *even their need has been forgotten* as past generations of programmers go onto Social Security and beyond. Things like dynamic equivalence are nearly zero cost with indirect addressing hardware, but incur severe performance costs on hardware without indirect addressing. Further, it is a hassle to try to write new and advanced systems when *you can't even invent the instructions you need* to use, but instead must rattle around slow subroutines written using instructions that poorly fit your needs. Hmmm, maybe someone should write a book about what has been lost, both in computer languages and hardware, *and in the imaginations* of those who are stuck with present software and hardware? Hence, I see Mike's difficulty as a failure of imagination - he can't see what mathematics and computers could do, if freed from their present arbitrary constraints. Any thoughts? Steve =================== On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:58 AM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *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 <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
