The Hofstadter Strange Loop keynote was just posted online, relevant to this discussion: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/strange-loop-keynote
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > IMO a "creativity" could be a search through morphisms of experiential > computational complexity patterns applied on relatively unrelated patterns > correlated through some expressive indicativistic search potential (the > best I can articulate verbally). This would only be a portion of what the > generally accepted view of what creativity is. So with my little math > subset of "creativity" I would not refer to it as that but it would fall > under the umbrella. > > > > It took me a little while to get that one. Even though you cannot > define an ultimate meta function of imagination, it is imagination > that can potentially break through the barriers that the lack of > ultimate meta-generalizations leave in its void. Using imagination > with rational methods (including the use of key structural insights > that can leverage incremental learning) are methods that can often be > used to transcend the limitations of narrow AI. So, even though early > examples of imagination in AI are too primitive to achieve what we > think is AGI, they should be powerful enough to demonstrate the > potential of their application. I personally think that a program > that is able to do some genuine learning would be able to acquire the > skills that are necessary to implement variations of the method. The > flaw in this opinion is that while it might be easy to create a test > that would demonstrate how learning could be used to implement new > variations of applied artificial imagination the examples would > probably need to be cherry picked out of the morass of ineffectual > complexity that such a test would create using current knowledge. So, > one opinion is that imaginative creativity is just another AGI > problem; given a solution to learning in a complex data environment > (and of learning to outwit the subsequent retrieval complexity) then > the problems of imaginative creativity would sort themselves out. > > > My original question though was if an explicit/a priori creativity would > need to have an input variable as reference to a self as our human view of > creativity is based on a similar search result’s (as described above) > effectiveness. A "creative" solution to a problem, a "creative" musical > composition. Does creativity rely on a relation to a self as possessor > and/or observer? Is there a common relationship of creativity across selves > without self? That’s all that I was thinking about... > > > > I don't believe so. As Robert and I were saying it becomes a "so what" > situation -except- for one possibly critical matter. If artificial > imagination can be employed without a sense of self, and if a sense of > self is implied by AGI then that implies that the imagination can be > part of the fundamental solution to AGI (because it is not dependent > on the attainment of a critical base for AGI to emerge). If rational > methods (narrow AI combined with meta definitions of how they are > employed during run time) can be used to filter out a lot of the > useless theories and other noise then imagination can be used to > further the narrow AI methods. So, my other opinion is that > imaginative creativity is part of the solution to the AGI problem. It > can exist within a low level of meta awareness and I believe be used > to create a higher level of meta awareness that can discern effective > actions from ineffective actions. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > To build an explicit functional creativity you have to go into > definitions even if the result is the definition. Even if building an > implicit creativity that emerges from an autopoietic self. Or a relativity > defined creativity from an observational standpoint. Creativity is > relational and a mathematical concept of creativity can subdivided. > > > > > > > > IMO a "creativity" could be a search through morphisms of experiential > computational complexity patterns applied on relatively unrelated patterns > correlated through some expressive indicativistic search potential (the > best I can articulate verbally). This would only be a portion of what the > generally accepted view of what creativity is. So with my little math > subset of "creativity" I would not refer to it as that but it would fall > under the umbrella. > > > > > > > > My original question though was if an explicit/a priori creativity would > need to have an input variable as reference to a self as our human view of > creativity is based on a similar search result’s (as described above) > effectiveness. A "creative" solution to a problem, a "creative" musical > composition. Does creativity rely on a relation to a self as possessor > and/or observer? Is there a common relationship of creativity across selves > without self? That’s all that I was thinking about... > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > > > > a bit of an exercise in futility methinks this topic, unless the > definition allowed to quickly screen human and machine "culture" for > creativity. Since I consider "survival" (of the "selves" you might say, as > there is strength in numbers and speciation) as the key driver of > intelligence, it follows that the self must be in all equations. Presumably > creativity is keeping the self alive and its memes spreading while > generating new domains and new sub-domains of activity, cognitive > imperialism you might call it, perhaps I was drinking water from a cup and > you start flipping and flying glasses and bottles all over the place like > Tom Cruise in that movie. If barman skills were 100% showmanship then > probably they wouldn't exist, but since you get a bit of a workout too and > get your drinks mixed in the process, while partially satisfying the > demands of innovation seekers, then you probably have constructive > creativity, > > > > As I have pointed out before, the surviving self is a rather > non-computable entity, eternally waltzing towards its own annihilation with > little to show for it in the process, so I would not go into definitions > and algorithms for the self or its creative side, perhaps after creating > the self I have no need for further definitions, it could well be the self > has a need for definitions but that is not my problem or yours, is it? > > > > AT > > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > > > > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > > > -- > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18769370-bddcdfdc > 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
