I think that there is a slight possibility that Jesus implied (speaking through someone else) that I would get a deterministic polynomial time solution to Boolean Satisfiability. Since that is so unlikely, I figured that if there was any way that I actually figured it out it would stand as rational evidence for belief. Surprisingly, some people were so biased that they weren't even able to pick up on the rational evidence argument for belief. Although Christians are taught to expect prejudice, it amazed me that the argument for rational evidence based on an extremely unlikely outcome that was dependent on an outlier belief was almost universally rejected by the people in this group as a means of attaining insight. So should I be banned? Because if banning people who are not willing to discuss the central issues in ways that would show that they are trying to understand other peoples point of view means that I would be banned then I have to be against it. Jim Bromer
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
