Don't ban anybody unless they threaten violence, post advertisements, post flagrantly offensive material, are crazy (and not just partially crazy, like a lot of AGI researchers are to even try it :)!!! etc etc..... boards that have a reputation for laissez-faire attitudes do the best. Typically what I've seen is that message boards that institute a banning policy do not enforce it consistently, and messages start to mysteriously disappear. Posters lose confidence and leave.
On 12/3/13, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > > This may be too late, but... > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:25 AM, tintner michael > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> "Mike ever really care to explain why an algorithm shouldn't be able to >> show creativity? Creativity is the semi-randomly recombination of already >> known patterns with a certain (meta-)goal? How should that not be >> possible >> via an algorithm? Maybe we can just answer that question once and for >> all?" >> >> An algo says [do] a + [do] b + [do] c = [to get] d >> > > No, that is a FORMULA, like your recipe below. An ALGORITHM is a procedure > that might do something MUCH more iterative, recursive, and subtle, like > determine that a summation of a, b, and c is needed based on a body of text > that expresses, for example, that the overall weight of something must be > known. From such an algorithm would come a formula like you expressed. > >> >> A recipe says [take] a + [take] b + [take] c = [to make] d >> >> An algo is a fully specified and specific plan of action - a,b,c,d,e etc. >> . >> > > ONLY YOUR algorithms. Here, we work on MUCH more capable algorithms, e.g. > ones that can solve equations, etc., following whatever line of inquiry is > needed to get the job done. Once you introduce limitless recursion, > self-modifying code, etc., the limitations you now see disappear. > > We are now up against some subsequent challenges. Everyone here has > different ideas as to exactly WHAT those challenges really are. IMHO these > challenges all rotate around dealing with the fallout of superstitious > learning, which is known to be a fundamentally unsolvable problem. People > have developed various strategies for dealing with erroneous tentative > conclusions, e.g. as embodied in some NN methods, but their performance so > far has been orders of magnitude short of wet ware, so something more is > clearly needed. > > >> There is no potential in there for producing or dealing with a new >> element >> - for deriving let's say "~~~ " oer "£$" - altogether new symbol/ >> elements, (wh. I've just identified]. >> > > Both man and machine needs DEFINITIONS. Once defined, both man and machine > can deal with new things. > >> >> A recipe can't specify a new ingredient unknown to it - can't tell you >> whether the foods in that man's shopping bag, which you can't yet see,, >> will or will not fit with steak tartare, say. >> > > Neither can you. > >> >> So, in answer to Steve's request, for my next post, I will tell you how >> you CAN produce new elements not from an algo [impossible} but from an >> "idea" - and what an "idea" is. >> > > On what sort of computer do you execute ideas on? Can you translate "idea" > to something more tangible which can be computed upon - oops, I guess that > would make it an algorithm. > > Perhaps you missed the "A" in "AGI". Here, we are looking at ways of > building intelligent *computer programs*. If you can't translate ACI to a > computer, then you are on the wrong forum. Have you considered moving to a > neuroscience forum? > > BTW, I thought that only brutal dictators executed ideas B-:D> > > PLEASE *quickly* acknowledge that you will post you own ACI ideas and STOP > disparaging other people's work on algorithms, or I will join others in > DEMANDING your banning. > > OK? > > Steve > ============================= > >> On 3 December 2013 14:08, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Did Mike ever really care to explain why an algorithm shouldn't be able >>> to show creativity? Creativity is the semi-randomly recombination of >>> already known patterns with a certain (meta-)goal? How should that not >>> be >>> possible via an algorithm? Maybe we can just answer that question once >>> and >>> for all? >>> >>> We humans can not come up with anything genuinely new in terms of >>> patterns - right? I can not imagine a universe obeying different laws of >>> natures because I have no a priory knowledge about that system .... I >>> can >>> just imagine weird stuff based on patterns that I already learned but I >>> can >>> not just imagine genuinely different universe. So there is the limit of >>> creativity which humans as well as software will have to accept? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:29 PM, jay man <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ben what is the best way to send you a PM, what is the email? Don't >>>> worry I'm not a troll,:). BTW, so spot on with Capt. James T. Kirk >>>> comment. >>>> >>>> www.livenda.com >>>> jay >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <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/303/15521057-fd0fbfbe> | >>>> 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/303/23508161-fa52c03c> | >>>> 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> 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/303/11943661-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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
