Mike, The laws of physics, as currently understood, clearly imply that the human brain operates according to a process equivalent to an algorithm. There is lots of evidence for these physical laws. But like all scientific knowledge, the so-called "laws of physics" are not absolutely known and may be disproved at some point...
Just as the laws of physics clearly imply that a glass window is made of atoms -- even though nobody can explain, yet, the details of exactly how the atoms combine to form the glass window... -- Ben On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben:Every idea you have ever heard of is an example of a concept formed > via algorithmic processes. Examples: motorcycle, number, chinchilla, > Dragon and Phoenix Lucky Together, nun, none, the Orgiastic Chiliasm of the > Anabaptists, trolls, Internet trolls, Mike Tintner > > This is a would-be scientific hypothesis. It is not a fact. > > No one has ever spied an “algorithmic process” at the heart of humans > forming concepts. No one even knows how information is laid down in the > brain, period. > > In science, hypotheses, to be treated seriously, have to produce > evidence/examples. > > You have none. Neither has anyone else here. > > IN technology, too you have to produce some evidence, some “proof of > concept,” however limited and informal for your project. > > You have none. Neither has anyone else here. > > That is simply appalling and inexcusable practice for any professional > scientist/technologist – esp when this is a central question for AGI and > AGI is so stuck. > > > *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:52 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > Mike T -- > > Every idea you have ever heard of is an example of a concept formed via > algorithmic processes. Examples: motorcycle, number, chinchilla, Dragon > and Phoenix Lucky Together, nun, none, the Orgiastic Chiliasm of the > Anabaptists, trolls, Internet trolls, Mike Tintner > > One conceptual problem you're having is a failure to grok that the > lower-level elements combined to form ordinary human ideas are very small > ones, so that your conscious mind cannot perceive the ways that its > concepts are formed of arrangements of very small, unconscious elements > > Then you absurdly ask me to give a detailed example showing how, say, > "motorcycle" is formed from zillions of teeny little mental patterns > abstracted from perceptions and actions.... The reason we can't give > detailed examples for you, are that cognitively natural, consciously > understood concepts live near the top of a massive deep hierarchy, and are > huge complex combinations of the teensy underlying elements. > > -- Ben G > > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> But, Ben, you still have not produced one example. ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE. >> >> I can though – I agree – produce a more precisely reasoned explanation of >> algorithms’ impotence. >> >> An algorithm or recipe is by definition **a set of rules which prescribe >> how to combine a given set of elements.** >> >> They only prescribe those given elements. There is no facility within >> an algorithm or recipe for prescribing new elements.[Or you must >> demonstrate such a facility]. >> >> You cannot have an algorithm which says: “take one Lego brick and >> another Lego brick – oh and something else which I haven’t thought of – but >> you’ll think of something...” >> >> Also – they cannot prescribe GENERAL elements. (Kinda important for A >> General I). Or GENERAL structures. >> >> For example, there is no algorithm for (building) “HOUSES.” There are >> only algorithms for building one or more specific *kinds of house – Lego >> houses.* >> ** >> *Ditto there is no algorithm for combining “BUILDING BLOCKS” - any >> conceivable kind of building part – just, say, Lego bricks.* >> ** >> *You don’t and can’t have an algorithm which says:* >> ** >> *“take one building block [of any kind] and another building block [of >> any kind] and put them on top of each other like this.”* >> ** >> *That’s a self-evident nonsense. The rules or principles of combining >> particular kinds of building blocks do not apply to other kinds – those of >> bricks don’t apply to rocks or lumps of clay.* >> ** >> *There is no algorithm similarly for (cooking) “A MEAL” or “A STEW” or >> “A SMORGASBORD.” Just a particular processed dish.* >> ** >> *There is no algorithm for combining “FOOD INGREDIENTS” – any >> conceivable kind of food ingredient.* >> ** >> *There is no algorithm which says:* >> ** >> *“take one food ingredient [of any kind] and another food ingredient >> [of any kind] and heat them together to 60deg C. and then add one sauce [of >> any kind]”.* >> ** >> *That’s an obvious nonsense. Food ingredients are extremely diverse and >> do not combine in universal ways.* >> ** >> *ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE.* >> ** >> *P.S. General – conceptual – thinking, such as my examples above, is >> the basis of creative thinking – and the basis of all human activities. We >> do say all the time: “put together a menu with something healthy as a >> starter, and a substantial meat dish in the middle, and a really great >> over-the-top sweet at the end.”* >> ** >> *“General prescriptions” are the foundation of human action – but they >> are demonstrably non-algorithmic – and indeed anti-algorithmic. The >> opposite of specialised thinking.* >> ** >> *This is why algorithms don’t and can’t handle concepts, period.* >> ** >> >> >> >> *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:46 PM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben >> >> >> But Mike T, >> >> You have no argument in favor of your assertion that: complex algorithmic >> processes, controlling an agent interacting with a complex enviroment, >> cannot produce results that will be interpreted by humans or other >> intelligent agents as fundamentally creative and novel. >> >> You simply repeat this assertion as if others should find it as >> intuitively obvious as you do ;p >> >> I agree that simple algorithmic processes, which can be written down in a >> few lines of text, cannot give rise to results that humans will perceive as >> fundamentally creative and novel -- except perhaps occasionally by chance, >> or after extraordinarily large run-times on extraordinarily powerful >> computers. >> >> But this limitation of simple algorithmic processes says nothing about >> complex ones. >> >> You don't **feel**, intuitively, like the apparently creative, novel >> things humans have created could have come out of complex algorithmic >> processes (controlling agents interacting with environments). But you >> don't have the ability to see the human unconscious in detail, nor do you >> have technical understanding of complex algorithmic processes. >> >> As an aside, note that an algorithmic process interacting with an >> environment, can in principle use its manipulation of the environment to >> modify the hardware on which it runs. This means its behavior in the long >> run may become quite unpredictable, to someone who knows only about the >> algorithmic process and doesn't have full knowledge of the environment. >> >> -- Ben >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Mike Tintner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I’ve already covered it. GA’s do not produce *new elements*. They >>> permutate a very limited set of given elements. So a GA can produce >>> variations on an electric circuit. But that’s it. That’s all it can do. >>> Electric circuits. It can’t produce a new system of water piping. Or oil >>> piping. Or aquifers. Or an irrigation system. >>> >>> And even then, you need the guidance of a human programmer. >>> >>> Creativity is *new elements* m – endless generativity. >>> >>> *From:* Mike Archbold <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:06 PM >>> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Mike Tintner >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> PRODUCE ONE EXAMPLE of a creative algorithm. Or a creative recipe. >>>> One single algorithm that has produced one new element. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I'd say the whole of evolutionary computing which subsumes all of >>> genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies, evolutionary >>> programming etc fits that general goal. See a book called Intro to >>> Evolutionary Computing by Eiben Smith. Optimisation, modelling, simulation >>> are the results. Now you are going to counter "well, it's still narrow and >>> preprogrammed." But then that gets back to the problem of moving the goal >>> posts around in AI. It's creative given the present state of AI, does it >>> scale up to your expectations? Probably not at this point. But, it's >>> creative to an extent. I'm not here to sell you on AI, though, just to give >>> you an example (one fucking example that is). >>> >>> >>> *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/303/212726-11ac2389> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> http://goertzel.org >> >> "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche >> >> *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/303/212726-11ac2389> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche > > *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/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
