Mike, On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> This is basically down to a transition from a textual culture which is > overwhelmingly static to a multimedia culture in which the dominant media > are moving – moving picture – media. > It looks to me like our society is going from actually experiencing reality, to vicariously experiencing pseudo-reality. In the process, they have lost track of what reality really is. Note that some people seek upon death to put themselves into a pseudo-reality, rather than in 'droids in our reality, as though pseudo-reality is EASIER to completely create than reality is to merely interact with. Of course they are right, but only in the movies. > > What is crucial here is not simply the introduction of new media, but the > ability to easily ANALYSE those media. That is something we are just > acquiring right now with appropriate programs, even though tv/movies have > dominated the culture quantitatively for some 50 years. > Yea, we may just have to sit this one out, while they beat their heads against a brick wall. > > Your thinking that maths is central is also a throwback to the outgoing > culture – maths cannot produce movies, > You might not have noticed, but there have been several recent movies made by computer. because movies are overwhelmingly about natural irregular bodies moving. > And most movement is irregular. > These movies are complete with objects being fragmented, the fragments interacting with themselves and everything else, etc. > Maths is not art – which does deal with irregular bodies. > Perhaps you have missed some of the computer art shows? > “They” – the others in this discussion – can’t see that our fundamental > perception of the world both naturally and now via media is of a movie; you > can’t see that maths cannot formularise the irregular forms of the world. > Yet. > I suspect that our disagreement as over the terms "math" and "maths" "maths" refers to a particular specified group of mathematical techniques. I agree that techniques do not now exist to compute learned perceptions, etc. "math" refers to all techniques, now and forever in the future, for representing things as symbols in a way that facilitates their manipulation to solve problems. Even this English sentence is a "math" where alphabetic symbols represent the real world, in a way that facilitates this discussion. I see absolutely no impediment for math (but not present-day maths) to eventually conquer the perceptual and cognitive sciences. No impediment that is besides "young bulls" like Ben, who charge on ahead without nearly enough to do anything but pollute the environment for the "old bulls" who will follow. *There once was a young bull who said to an old bull "Look up on the hill there. There are COWS up there. I'm going to run up there and get me one." The old bull responded "You just run along son, I'll take my time and get the rest of 'em." * AGI, if it ever comes into existence, will be created by old bulls, not young bulls. This has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with mindset. Ben's karma is obviously that of Wolfgang von Kempelen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_von_Kempelen>, a genius who blew his reputation early, so that major developments he made later in life were ignored by science, were nearly lost to history, and he died poor. AGI is probably forming Ben even more than Ben is forming AGI, which I can see from Ben's shifting perspective over the last few years. As with von Kempelen, this education is probably coming too late for Ben to reap the benefits. Others are following this lead, apparently because they can't see where it is heading. Steve =================== > *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 8:35 AM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] 3 vs 4 Dimensional Computing > > Anastsios, > > This discussion may have revealed the psychotic condition that underlies > AGIsm!!! > > Nearly everyone sees that things have shape in 3D. People who have looked > at the issue see that they have shape in 4D. EVERYTHING has a beginning and > an end, Between the beginnings and the ends things change their 3D shape. > In all respects, everything exists in 4D and has all of the characteristics > of shape. > > We learn about our world by observing the shapes of things. Take away a > dimension, that at best this becomes difficult, and often it becomes > impossible to "learn" without some sort of supervised learning. > > To illustrate, consider the following thought-experiment, which you can > easily performe in the real world. Have a friend purchase a 1,000 piece > jigsaw puzzle, assemble the puzzle (and note how long it takes him to > assemble the puzzle), discard all of the edge pieces, disassemble the > remaining puzzle, put the puzzle in an unmarked container that does NOT > contain any indication of the image on the puzzle, and present it to you to > assemble. > > You will find assembling the puzzle without the edge pieces (a 2D edge) or > the picture (adjacent frame information) to be EXTREMELY difficult - but > not quite impossible. Note how much longer it took you to assemble the same > (but smaller) puzzle that has only ~880 pieces. > > This is what present-day AGI is trying to do - discarding information that > may (or may not) be absolutely critical, and in the process making the > problem orders of magnitude more difficult if not completely impossible. > People are now wasting decades of their lives trying to make something work > with one (or more) too few dimensions to describe the shapes of objects > that they seek to learn to recognize and manipulate. > > Notice that Mike Tintner, the same guy who thinks that AGI transcends > mathematics, saw this as clearly as you see your keyboard in from of you, > yet this seems absurd to you. I find this to be absolutely fascinating. > > *I think this may be a MAJOR discovery* - not about AGI, but about the > people who now work on AGI. With such a perceptual blind spot, AGI may > truly be impossible to ever achieve - at least by the people now working on > it. > > Perhaps some sort of "entrance exam" is needed for people working in AGI - > to detect such perceptual anomalies? > > Any other thoughts about this? > > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
