It doesn't have to be an "eternal" essence. Like for instance your blob diagram on the other post. You could have a large one shaped like, say a foot. The next one you see is shaped like a foot but smaller. So they both have the essence of a foot appearance to them. It's not mathematical. You are just identifying characteristics. You see a happy group of people with a birthday cake and presents... has the essence of a birthday party. Next week a different cake, different people, different presents, still meets the criteria of the essence of a party. Note: from one case to the next we are talking about wholly different instances but the essence is the same.
The question is how do you know if some case fits the essence in question? Then you get into the possibility of algorithm, because you have to account for the identification of likenesses in terms of properties. Calling you a British empiricist wasn't meant to be an insult. There is nothing wrong with that. When I think of that school of thought, though, in the extreme cases there was nothing that persisted from moment to moment. Just because the last ten people that jumped off a building died doesn't mean the next one will and so on.... Eventually in order to handle AI you have to settle on something, if nothing else then that there is some form of continuity through time. Math can be a part, doesn't mean it's the whole thing... logic can be a part, not the whole thing. Even going back to the works of Aristotle, he didn't use logic as the basis for everything. Metaphysics accounts for first principles. He had logic in some works and metaphysics in other works. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > The saviour really applies to Ben. > > As for eternal essences, it sounds a bit too Platonic and airy philosophical > for me. The focus here for me should be on how we can produce creative, > endlessly generative AGI's - like humans and animals. And it is quite clear > that they are not and could not be following algorithms, other than for > brief routines - fleeting parts of their activities, but not the wholes. > > -----Original Message----- From: Mike Archbold > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:43 AM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > > I'm trying to retire from message board arguing, I don't like it much, > but it sounds to me like you agree that there are some laws, rules, > etc that persist from case to case, which is what I was wondering. > When I've seen posts from you you seem to discount anything persisting > beyond just the present case at hand. I recall an interchange not to > long ago when I ventured that the essence of some problem persists > from case to case, but you said something like "there is no essence." > But then you've segued quickly into an attack on creativity, or the > capacity to be generative, which I have not said a thing about so I'm > not going to defend it. > > I don't think it's fair either to lump me in with the rest of the > AGIers as they are in your opinion. Nobody is my savior. I have a > book running about 80 pages which I can send a copy of to you when it > is complete, projected the end of this month. > > Mike A > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Mike A: >> Surely you'd have to concede that there are some rules which persist >> over time and are static? >> >> Absolutely. All mathematical and logical and algorithmic systems (in >> themselves) are completely, eternally non-creative, non-generative. They >> are >> all dead recipes with rigid rules that have never and could never produce >> a >> single new ingredient or element - because quite obviously they are not >> designed to be creative. They are recipes with set, exclusive mixtures of >> ingredients. >> >> (This is the crux of creativity - the capacity to add new hitherto unknown >> elements to a course of action or its product). >> >> If you add new unknown elements to a recipe, the recipe collapses and >> could >> get v. nasty. If you allow a building algorithm that produces lego block >> structures, to introduce any new building blocks - rocks, say, or chunks >> of >> mud, - its buildings could literally collapse. And no one tries this. >> These >> systems are designed to produce precisely predetermined results with >> precisely predetermined mixes of known elements. >> >> These systems are wonderful if you want to be a narrow AI cook who can >> cook >> one specialist dish or set of dishes. They're useless if you want to be a >> creative cook, who can endlessly generate new dishes, as humans can. >> >> Now surely you can concede that no one anywhere in the entire history of >> the >> world has produced a single exception to this general rule of the >> non-generativity of formulaic, rulebound, set-ingredients systems? There >> are >> no algorithms, formulae or logics that are creative. No one has ever >> produced an example here. No one ever will.... And there are zillions of >> possible examples. >> >> What we do have is the most amazing amount of logical gobbledygook that >> argues how these systems might be creative - but neither a) explains how >> they can introduce new elements or b) provides a single instance of a >> program etc that ever has. >> >> Nada. But an awful lot of shameful assertions that of course there are >> such >> systems - and of course people have produced millions of examples of them >> in >> the past - and how could you, Mike, be so stupid as to think there are not >> - >> and ROFL at you - oh absolutely ridiculous - but now, right now, the >> speaker >> is just too busy, you understand, to produce a single example. Oh of >> course >> he could produce *so many* examples, and he will, he will, but now right >> now, he can't. (Basically all people who argue thus are lying gits). >> >> If you or Ben can grasp this simple obvious truth of the non-generativity, >> non-new-element-ality of formulaic, rulebound systems with set mixtures of >> ingredients, I will indeed be your saviour. >> >> What you et al are trying to maintain is a scientific, material absurdity >> - >> and something of which you will come to be v. v. ashamed. Produce ONE >> FUCKING EXAMPLE. Or admit you can't. >> >> P.S. And I've heard all the shit about sophisticated, evolving systems and >> GA's etc - they cannot and never have introduced a single new hitherto >> unknown element They have no novelty. Demonstrably. They are mindblowingly >> narrow in their products except to AGI suckers who actually half believe >> their own hype - and AGI is nothing but failed hype. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
