On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike A: > > 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. > > This is the same problem I deal with over and over - so central to AGI - and > people here just avoid it, precisely because maths can't deal with it, and > nobody taught them what to do. > > No, there is no central essence of any kind that helps you recognize "foot" > or any other conceptual group, such as "waterdrop" or "line". (That idea > *is* Platonic). >
Essence in philosophy is just those properties of any thing which make it what it is. They are required. A thing may have other properties which don't change what the thing in question is -- so called accidental properties. Essence doesn't again, have to be "eternal" although I believe that essence is external, by that I mean essence period, not an instance of it. My only argument here was that the essence of, say, a "foot shaped blob" will hold from case to case (two pictures of a foot shaped blog having the same essence). > Think of the reality of waterdrops - they are fluid and can be continually > form-changing. > > Effectively, every other group in the world is form-changing. A given foot > of course is not form-changing (unless you create a likeness in a fluid > substance like water). But feet as a whole can be considered as > form-changing as waterdrops. They can be smashed, acid-burned, toeless and > all kinds of deformations. > > So what kind of conceptual prototype can/should you/your-brain use to > represent form-changing entities? > The essence of something could be "form changing." A candle, for example, must melt thus change its form. If it did not change form it wouldn't be a candle. It might be a yellow candle, blue candle, whatever, that is fine, those are accidental properties (non-essential) but it must be meltable, must have that property. > Thinks. > > THE PROTOTYPE HAS TO BE FORM-CHANGING! - FLUID. > > No eternal essence whatsoever. > > Once you realise the prototype can be form-changing, then it doesn't matter > what initial prototypical form for a given group - of waterdrops, feet etc - > you start with. You can adjust it, replace it with a distinctly more > representative form as you go along. > > As you go along, you also form "principles of transformation" that are > relevant to, and help define, the given group. Waterdrops change in somewhat > different ways to plasticine to,say, chairs. > > To think fluidly, you have to totally change your frameworks of reference - > you have to think in MOVIE terms. Wh. is hard for AGI-ers because they > mainly think in static book/literate terms, and there is no geometry that > can analyse all the actual and potential forms of, say, a "writhing body." > Or indeed a "winding snake" or "flowing amoeba." > > Well, the brain is clearly a MOVIE CAMERA of sorts - consciousness is a > movie, not a series of photo stills. So the brain must be adept at dealing > with fluidly moving forms. Not eternal essences. Everchanging forms for an > everchanging world. > Well, we remember things not in a movie fashion, but also by using logic, which I know you cringe when you hear that. We reason what must have happened, for example, or prefer to interpret things. Part of perception is like a movie, I think, but not all of it. It's a combination IMO. > But AGI-ers haven't been taught to think in movie terms. Oh dear.. > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Mike Archbold > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:23 AM > > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5 > 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
