I'm afraid that I'm losing track of your major point but . . . .
First off, you are violating your own definition of complexity . . . .
You said --> A system is deemed "complex" if the smallest size of a theory
that will explain that system is so large that, for today's human minds, the
discovery of that theory is simply not practical. Notice that this
definition does not imply that there any such systems in the real world, it
just says that *if* the theory size were ever to go off the scale *then* the
system would (by definition) be complex.
By this definition, gravity is not complex. Yet, below you are arguing that
it is, at least, a little bit complex (which seems to be getting more and
more analogous to "a little bit pregnant" :-).
Second, you keep whip-sawing between dismissing obviously complex systems
like the adaptive aerodynamics of an F-14 as not complex (because "whatever
that complexity was, it was simple and predictable enough that the control
software could actually be written and the complexity could be cancelled
out.") and then saying that the least little bit of complexity will make an
AI virtually impossible to design.
You can't have it both ways. WHY is it that engineers can manage the
complexity of high-speed adaptive aerodynamics yet you are absolutely
positive that they can't do the same thing for intelligence?
I think that the shoe is really on the other foot . . . . what problems
*haven't* been eventually solved once we learn enough? True -- intelligence
is the mother of all problems, but that doesn't mean that it's too difficult
to engineer (like virtually anything else that humankind has put its mind
to).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:52 PM
Subject: [agi] Complexity is in the system, not the rules themselves
Mark Waser wrote:
If I understand Richard correctly, he is assuming that it is
necessary to make symbols themselves complex and that each symbol
needs his four forces of doom: Memory, Development, Identity, and
Non-Linearity.
I have no problem with the first three but am not so sure that I
agree with the non-linearity. Certainly, the interactions between
symbols are non-linear but I believe that they are reasonably bounded
-- particularly if you use some intelligent design principles (pun
intended). For example, nature re-uses virtually everything -- I
have to believe that this applies to cognition as well. Similarly,
look at software design patterns (as per Gamma, et. al.). I don't
believe at all that rules governing the behavior of inter-symbol
interactions are necessarily complex. I believe that inter-symbol
interaction will eventually be soluble with a reasonable number of
rules (and rules generated from those rules). Just like gravity, the
behavior generated by the rules WILL be complex but the rules will
not. And just like gravity, there will be more than enough
regularity that we will be able to predict and control the stability
of inter-symbol interaction *as long as* we understand the rules well
enough.
More than once in your recent posts, you have said one particular thing
that does not make any sense to me, so I need to focus on it.
What you said in the above case was "I don't believe ... that rules
governing the behavior of inter-symbol interactions are necessarily
complex".
The problem with this statement is that strictly speaking one can never
say that the RULES governing a system are "complex".
Now, before you jump on me (because I have probably made the same
mistake), I should say that we sometimes talk that way as a kind of
shorthand, but right now we must tread very carefully, so I am going to be
very precise:
The rules that govern a system are just rules - they are not, by
themselves, "complex". The SYSTEM can be complex (meaning: you cannot
understand global behavior from local rules), but the rules themselves are
not complex.
But then what can you say about the rules? What you can say about them is
whether or not they seem likely to generate complexity. Certain kinds of
simple, linear, elegant and separable rules tend not to generate
complexity, but other kinds of ugly, tangled rules do tend to generate
complexity in the system as a whole.
What do I mean by "ugly, tangled rules"? Well, that was the whole point
of me listing the so-called four forces of doom. That list of rule
characteristics:
- Memory
- Development
- Identity
- Nonlinearity
... is just the sort that tends to make the system as a whole complex.
These rules are not "complex" by themselves, it is just that in our
empirical studies of large numbers of experimental systems, putting THOSE
kinds of rules in tends to make the system as a whole behave in a complex
way. Most often it makes the system just random, of course! But if
complexity is going to happen, it is usually because the rules have one or
more of those features.
So, to illustrate why this is a big deal, look at the quote above: you
say that
I have no problem with the first three but am not so sure that I
agree with the non-linearity. Certainly, the interactions between
symbols are non-linear but I believe that they are reasonably bounded...
This is not something you can defend: if you think that the rules that
govern the behavior of symbols do tend to have three of the four
characteristics, then you must expect that the system as a whole will be
complex, because this is just an empirical fact.
In particular, you cannot say "... the interactions between symbols are
non-linear but I believe that they are reasonably bounded...". Reasonably
bounded? That does not buy you anything at all: we can put the tiniest
amount of nonlinearity into a system and leave out all the others, and the
system still can be complex!
Now, it is certainly true that we sometimes utter phrases like "the rules
governing the system are complex", but that is sloppy, because what we
mean is that the rules have enough of these characteristics that the
system is complex. I sometimes do this myself, even though I shouldn't,
but it is generally harmless.
So when you say:
> Just like gravity, the
> behavior generated by the rules WILL be complex but the rules will
> not.
... I have to say that this is a meaningless statement on two counts.
First of all, if the rules have some of those four complexity-generating
characteristics, the system as a whole will almost always be either
complex or random-and-boring. We just do not know of any (many?) examples
of a system that has those four in the elements, but where the system as a
whole is easily predictable or analysable from its element rules! For
anyone to say that they believe that intelligent systems will be the
exception is to fly in the face of all empirical evidence... it would be
the biggest fluke in the history of the universe if a system had all
those, and yet was not either complex or random.
Second, you compare to gravity. Disastrous example: the gravitational
force only has one of the four characteristics, and that is nonlinearity
in n-body systems, where n > 2. And if n > 2, but the system is dominated
by one large mass and a few widely separated little ones, then the system
is mostly not complex (and this, of course, is what applies in the case of
the solar system and Earth satellites). Hoping that the intelligent
systems case will happen to be like the *special* case that is like the
solar system is a big stretch: there is almost no mapping between the
cases.
Reading and re-reading your passage above, I cannot find anything that
says why we should expect the case of interacting symbols to not give rise
to complexity. I hear you when you say you *believe* that there will not
be a problem .... but if you keep in mind everything I have just said, can
you say why you believe that in this case the evidence for complexity will
be overwhelming, but the complexity will simply not be there?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com