Mike, You have made the SAME apparently nonsensical statements at least a hundred times. It isn't that your statements are wrong, but rather that you are conspicuously unable to see the objections of others and address those objections in ways that THEY can relate to. In short, you are unable to carry on a rational discussion about this topic.
Others of us started out with our own areas of ignorance, but we had the good sense to SHUT UP until we could forge the words to reach the minds of others. You obviously lack that particular form of good sense. Continuing... On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:55 AM, tintner michael <[email protected]>wrote: > BEn: The obvious inspiration for this question is Mike Tintner. While he > has a certain sincerity to him, nevertheless, he is basically a troll on > this list in the Internet sense. He thinks everyone researching in the AGI > field is badly misguided and tells us so, repetitively, over and over. > And he really doesn't understand the basic concepts of computer science -- > he thinks there are "non-algorithmic computer programs", or ways to operate > computers non-algorithmically... which really is not true if you take any > standard definition of "algorithm" . > > Have your discussion. But as I've pointed out repeatedly, what you are > saying about algorithms is not true > Exactly what - that ALL computer programs, even ones that execute randomly produced instructions, are performing an algorithm? > - you disagree radically with Deutsch and others that I have evidenced. > And you seem quite incapable of registering that point - or recognising > that there is a fundamentally alternative approach to AGI to your own and > that of your colleagues -and that that alternative approach is continually > evolving. > Please, what is that alternative. If it is ever to run on a computer, then it MUST be an algorithm. The alternative BTW is ACI - the recognition that this field is about > Artifcial Creative Intelligence > Can you explain how this might work? Certainly, if it is to run on a computer, then it MUST be an algorithm, though NOT an algorithm of a sort that you now understand. It appears to me that the problem is that you only understand a certain class of simplistic algorithms that does NOT include some of the subjects discussed on this forum,and further, you think the simplistic algorithms that you understand are all that there is to algorithms. You may be right about ACI, but you are OBVIOUSLY incapable of communicating what it is. > - the General is interdependent, but Creativity is primary - and you have > to no answer to algos' incapacity for creativity (basically Deutsch's point > too). > I see no problems with algorithms creating. Yes, I have heard you rail on this point, lots heat, but no light. **I** have written algorithms that HAVE created. You look at these and point out that it is "just" an algorithm and so there is no creativity. Ben: My advice is to put Mike on a sort of probation. Mike is to explain his concept of ACI, not in terms of what other approaches lack (as he has been doing), but rather from a clean slate, or starting with the work of someone else and describing how he would do it better or differently. In short, Mike needs to write a paper to communicate his thoughts (presuming of course that he has "thoughts" that really hang together) and post it here to discuss. Only then can we can have a USEFUL back and forth. Phase 1: Mike understands that he is to STOP disparaging the work of others UNTIL he posts a paper on ACI as described above and wrings it out in discussion. Phase 2: If Mike finds himself unable to comply with Phase 1, then pull his plug. Ben and Mike: My own views are also not all that AGI-friendly, but I read carefully, Google anything that isn't crystal clear, and write to win people over to my opinions, rather than rail with my own views. Mike just needs to learn to do the same. Either Mike will post a readable paper about ACI so we can see what he is talking about - or he won't. Either way, this problem will soon pass. Personally - I would like to see a paper about ACI that makes some sense. However, I would NOT like to see any more postings about how algorithms can never be creative, at least until those words are surrounded by SOMETHING so they make sense. So, if Ben takes my advice here, the next thing we will see from you is a paper explaining how ACI might work, posted on this forum. I look forward to seeing your paper. Steve ==================== > > On 3 December 2013 08:03, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I'm curious how many people think we should start a policy of banning >> obvious trolls from this email list? >> >> I don't have an extremely strong opinion one way or the other. However, >> I note that the presence of so much trolling does cause me to avoid looking >> at the list most of the time, because my default assumption is that the >> average post will not be interesting... >> >> The obvious inspiration for this question is Mike Tintner. While he has >> a certain sincerity to him, nevertheless, he is basically a troll on this >> list in the Internet sense. He thinks everyone researching in the AGI >> field is badly misguided and tells us so, repetitively, over and over. >> And he really doesn't understand the basic concepts of computer science -- >> he thinks there are "non-algorithmic computer programs", or ways to operate >> computers non-algorithmically... which really is not true if you take any >> standard definition of "algorithm" ... >> >> Occasionally Tintner has spurred interesting discussions. But mostly he >> just says the same boring, misunderstanding-based stuff over and over >> again... >> >> Anyway, I can go either way on this personally, but I'm curious what >> other list members think. Should we ban Tintner and any other similar >> trolls who emerge, or let them use the list as their trolling-ground? >> >> Note: I absolutely would NOT want to start banning people for believing >> AGI is impossible and saying so, or positing unpopular ideas, or saying >> everyone in the field is misguided, etc. But being sooooo repetitive with >> the same exact points over and over again -- to the point where you're the >> most active poster on the list, yet you don't really understand the core >> technical concepts underlying the field the list exists to discuss -- this >> verges from nonconformist thinking into trolling, IMO... >> >> Curious for others' thoughts.. ? >> >> -- Ben >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:29 AM, tintner michael < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Samantha: Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you >>> think results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of >>> biologically encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? >>> >>> If you want to know, listen to: >>> >>> Samantha: Uh, a human baby has to do a lot of bumping up against the >>> world, a lot of grasping, trying to move, trying to focus eyes, learning to >>> make sounds intelligible. >>> >>> It's nondeterministically programmed improvisation - >>> nondeterministically programmed improvised goal-seeking. That's what every >>> infant does when it flails aroundin the ways you mention, that's what >>> you're doing right now as you compose your posts. That's what all forms of >>> creativity entail and very visibly demonstrably entail. You think creatives >>> searching for inspiration, sometimes for years, are following algos - >>> step-by-step preplanned courses of action ? What's the algo for a creative >>> block? What's the algo that drives AGI projectbuilders to say "5 years if >>> we really really try" when he actually hasn't the slightest ideas? What do >>> you think H SImon was talking about when he talked about nonprogrammed, >>> unstructured thinking as distinct from the programmed kind? >>> >>> I have written a lot about this here, Samantha - you sound like you're >>> coming in at the tail-end. >>> >>> There are no creative algoirthms/recipes - algos are just amplified >>> human routines, low level stuff if extremely useful. And whenever an AGI-er >>> starts to offer a concrete example of "creative algorithms" as PM has just >>> done, they only end up offering excuses. Always. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3 December 2013 01:19, Samantha Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you think >>>> results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of biologically >>>> encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? If it is a set of algorithms, >>>> however encoded, then why can't it be implemented on a different substrate? >>>> Perhaps your notion of "algorithm" is a bit too limited. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM, tintner michael < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh please, PM. This is still dishonest. Ben tried this "read x.." >>>>> ploy several times - never was anything there. >>>>> >>>>> Put up your example of algorithmic creativity for the enlightenment of >>>>> all here. You can't. Neither can anyone else. >>>>> >>>>> Don';t lecture about "reasoning ability" until you're capable of >>>>> reasoning from empirical examples. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 December 2013 19:13, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As a philosopher, I would think that you would like to read. >>>>>> I hope you're not being lazy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a starting point.... >>>>>> >>>>>> http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-563.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, once you have context, I will be happy to discuss this >>>>>> with you. >>>>>> Gain some context and let's discuss. This is the internet, it's not >>>>>> that hard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> ~PM >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:23:29 +0000 >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> PM;We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. ..... >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the most cowardly and dishonest statement. It is typical. I >>>>>> am sick of this kind of dishonesty. Put up or shut up. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2 December 2013 18:17, Piaget Modeler >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. Do a little research. >>>>>> Read the book. >>>>>> Let's discuss when you've obtained Drescher's thesis (probably >>>>>> online) or read his book. >>>>>> >>>>>> Always happy to discuss... >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> ~PM. >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:06:54 +0000 >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> PM The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel >>>>>> situations >>>>>> >>>>>> Synthesized what new from what? A proper specific example please.Not >>>>>> a sleight-of-hand handwave. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guarantee you're talking nonsense. Prove me wrong. You should be >>>>>> delighted to discuss - this is the most important thing in AGI - far more >>>>>> important than any of the narrow AI techniques you often discuss in >>>>>> detail. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2 December 2013 17:59, Piaget Modeler >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary Drescher's thesis qua book "Made Up Minds". >>>>>> >>>>>> The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel >>>>>> situations. >>>>>> >>>>>> True Creativity. True Construction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Tintner, this is the meme that you need to surpress: "*a >>>>>> creative algorithm is a physical impossibility*". >>>>>> >>>>>> It is interfering with your reasoning ability, and creating a blind >>>>>> spot for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~PM >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:41:44 +0000 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> "Theoretically, contrary to Tintner's argument, it would be feasible >>>>>> to use CBR to discover and represent truly novel situations. However, >>>>>> this >>>>>> theoretical argument is not easy" >>>>>> >>>>>> One example of this creativity. From anywhere or anyone.. Actual or >>>>>> theoretical. >>>>>> >>>>>> I repeat : a creative algorithm is a physical impossibility like >>>>>> perpetual motion, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation of wine >>>>>> into the blood of Christ and other such religious fictions of creativity. >>>>>> And a bleeding obvious impossibility if you could just once turn your >>>>>> attention from the "architecture" of algorithms to the finished buildings >>>>>> they produce.. Then you'd see algorithms can't produce new building >>>>>> blocks.Only the same old Lego buildings. >>>>>> >>>>>> If no one can give even a theoretical example - not the slightest >>>>>> proof of concept - you are engaging in a Giant Wank. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >>>>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>>>>> 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >>>>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>>>>> 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/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | >>>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>>> 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-deec6279> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> http://goertzel.org >> >> "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. >> James T. Kirk >> *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
