Mike, On 6/28/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have a really fundamental disagreement. You think cultural conflicts > can be resolved by logical analysis >
Your statement centers around the word "can" above. My point is that if you can successfully educate all sides as to how things like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum work, then yes, it is possible. If the adversaries stick to their "everything I need to know is in my religious book so just shut up about your so-called advanced methods", then things are more difficult. Note that in 1995 I was literally sold into indentured servitude in Saudi Arabia. I escaped that situation WITHOUT educating the Metawa (their religious police force) with a "straw man" approach, where I engaged them regarding an unrelated issue (their practice of grabbing nurses off the street and taking them to the hospital for forced sperm checks). A literal reading of the Koran said that everyone involved in this should receive 80 lashes (for an accusation of fornication without the requisite 4 witnesses), so they became ever so cooperative with me to avoid this fate. Remember, these are the SAME Sunni Muslims who now populate the Taliban. Yes, I HAVE utilized some advanced approaches, with no power of my own, and with initially non-cooperative parties. I'm pretty damn sure they can't. My off-the-cuff law - the greater the > conflict & more dogmatic the conflicting positions on an issue, the greater > the ignorance about that issue. > Ain't THAT the truth?! Evolution. > Evolution is curious, because it is ~100% paradigm translatable between the two positions, e.g., can't God refine his own work?! That the two sides are too damn stupid to make this leap is REALLY sad. Massive scientific conflicts. > There is always a "story" behind these, e.g. Big Oil, the global COOLING issue (that temporarily masks global warming), solution bringing economic destruction, etc. Why? We don't have a single evolutionary scenario, (or v.v. few) to go on. > I.Q. Massive conflict. We have almost zero analysis of humans' conscious > thinking in solving the relevant problems, > We sure know that it fails in many instances, and that sometimes solutions ARE possible, e.g. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). and v little longitudinal study of their relevant skill acquisition. > My position is that "the human approach" is deeply flawed, so we should step aside and let the machines do their work. > > For your sake, I suggest, give me any example of a major cultural conflict > that has been *resolved* by logical analysis. (BTW I'm using "logical" in > the strict sense, not that of "reasonable"- but in this case, you can have > the second sense, too). > Certainly MAD is a good example, where a nearly certain nuclear exchange was averted at nearly the last minute with a Presidential announcement, just words, crafted by Rand Corp employee Herman Khan. Note the apparent (real?) parallel between MAD and "illogical" vengence (as Herman Khan later discussed). However, the advanced methods that I advocate have only been in existence for a few years, and apparently no State Department employees understand them yet. Hence, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum has yet to be tested. Steve Richfield ================ > Mike, > > WOW, you covered a LOT of territory in this posting. I will attempt to do > it justice... > > On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general >> point of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a >> classical mistake, which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm >> criticising. >> > > Putting my conclusion first, I think you missed some key points. > >> >> That mindset, I think, says: "yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't >> know how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to >> engage, when stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, >> my AGI will be both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative " >> >> You seem to be saying something complementary here: "you just try various >> new alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's >> logical." >> > > Not really. I am saying that there are advanced approaches to problems that > are apparently unknown to EVERYONE here on this forum, that provide smooth > paths to apparently intractable problems. When you are unfamiliar with these > methods, then the world appears chaotic as you now see it. > >> >> Sounds ok in theory. >> >> "It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the >> long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of >> bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest >> and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more >> nutritious." >> >> In practice, it doesn't work. >> > > Monkey who do stupid things will loose out to monkeys who are smarter, so > Darwin wins. > > You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in search of new food? You >> don't know how long it's going to take, you don't know what dangers lie >> there, or what the weather will be like. Today? Now? In a hour? Tomorrow? So >> you go... and there's nothing there.. do you keep looking? >> > > There are TWO issues here: > 1. finding something with LONG TERM value, like a place to eat for the > indefinite future, and > 2. refining your models, e.g. that bananas tend to grow in the lowlands > where there is ground water, so you can focus your search there once you > realize it. > > And in the same part of the forest, because maybe you missed something; >> or in another part? And how long do you spend? And which parts of trees and >> undergrowth etc do you search? And how can you be sure that you've searched >> thoroughly? And which senses do you use? And what do you do if there's a >> strange plant you've never seen, and you're not even sure if it is a plant, >> etc. etc. (I just watched a movie, Finding Amanda, in which a guy can't >> remember where in his *room*, let alone a forest, he hid his casino >> winnings, & can't find them even after taking the room apart - though the >> maid does afterwards). >> >> "Trying something new" is vastly more complicated than it sounds - there >> are in fact virtually infinite possibilities, most of which you won't have >> thought of, at all. How do you even know you've made a mistake in the first >> place, that warrants trying something new? How do you know you just didn't >> persist long enough? >> > > All good points, but all with relatively computable answers, albeit with > LOTS of computational noise. > > >> We're continually dealing with problematic problems, and the thing about >> them - is - LOGIC DOESN'T APPLY. >> > > I STILL haven't yet seen a situation where logic truly doesn't apply. > > There is no such thing as a systematic trial and error approach to them - >> not one that can work. That's why creativity is so *demonstrably* hard and >> such a eureka business when you get an idea. >> >> How do I invest in the stockmarket now? Buy up shares at their v. low >> current prices, and wait a few years? That HAS to work, right - it's >> logical? If you'd tried it with Japan in 1989, you'd still be in the red. >> There are no satisfactory algorithms for dealing with the stockmarket. >> > > Random investment beats nearly all other methods. > > There are some that may work at the moment - but only for a while, until >> the market changes radically.. >> >> And all problematic problems can be treated as stockmarket problems - in >> which you have to decide how to invest limited amounts of time and effort >> and resources, with highly limited, imperfect knowledge of the options, and >> sources of information, and un-precisely-quantifiable risks and deadlines. >> >> Problematic problems have infinite possibilities - and that's why humans >> are designed the way they are - not to be sure of anything. You're all >> dealing with the problematic problem of AGI - is there literally a single >> thing that anyone of you is sure of in relation to AGI? You ought to be, if >> you were algorithmically designed.. But nature is still a lot smarter >> than AGI. You haven't been given an instinctive trial-and-error system. >> >> Any approach to trial and error, has itself to be a matter of trial and >> error. >> >> You personally, Steve, seem to be making a further, related mistake here. >> And you can correct me. As I understand, you want to construct a general >> problem-solver, adapted from Eliza that can solve problems in many fields >> not just health. Sounds in principle good. Something more limited than a >> true AGI, but still v. useful. >> >> You're aware, though, as no one else in AGI seems to be, that in every >> field of culture, you face major conflicts. There isn't a single field where >> experts aren't deeply split and don't divide into conflicting schools. >> > > There are many reasons for this. Often some have skills that others don't, > have conflicting agendas beyond solving the problem at hand, etc. > > That obviously poses major difficulties for any general problem-solver, >> > > YES - definitely. Some proposed but not yet implemented approaches include: > 1. Identifying acceptable (and unacceptable) paradigms, e.g. do you > consider divine intervention? At present, Dr. Eliza says NO until you start > mentioning God, whereupon divine intervention goes on the list of > possibilities, though people REALLY don't even want to think about whether > God caused their problems, or is it that God has simply decided not to solve > them. Some users would like NOT to consider approaches that conflict with > mainstream medical beliefs, but I presently provide no control over this > though this would be possible by collecting mainstream and alternative > medicine into separate subject domains, which could be considered separately > or together. I would prefer to throw everything in together and let the user > sort it out, but this would be SO politically incorrect. > 2. Filtering the material with moderators, which may be necessary anyway > to make problem solving systems run really smoothly. Presumably, moderators > would be separated along domain lines. > 3. Some paradigms, e.g. mainstream medicine, are not readily adaptable to > Dr. Eliza's view of things. Dr. Eliza does NOT deal with same-symptoms > "diagnoses", but rather with cause-and-effect chain links that may vary > widely from one person to the next with the same diagnosis. This will > doubtless cause friction in being adopted in mainstream medical settings. > > let alone a superAGI. Your mistake - as I understand it - is that you >> think you can *logically* resolve these conflicts. >> > > Generally, yes. > > The reason everyone is so divided everywhere is that they're dealing with >> problematic problems to which there is no logical or right answer. What's >> the best treatment for cancer? >> > > Here I have some experience and have delivered lectures to cancer > sufferers. Cancer, like all other chronic illnesses, almost always involves > metabolic parameters gone crazy, which impairs out body's ability to kill > off the tumors that start every month or so in healthy people. For example, > substantially all cancer sufferers have either elevated or reduced body > temperatures. My standard approach of first correcting the crazy metabolic > parameters and then seeing if there is anything left to fix (which there is > in about half the cases) appears to also be the best approach here. > > What's the best way to do AGI now? >> > > As I have been noting - don't, until other social and governmental problems > are first fixed. > > What's the best way to deal with the economy, the petrol problem, Iraq >> etc etc? >> > > These all involve shared invalid assumptions that reverse reductio ad > absurdum methods would uncover. > > No matter how you - or even a superAGI - "drills down" into these >> problems, people will still be fighting tooth and nail about their >> "solutions." >> > > Only until they are educated about advanced dispute resolution methods. The > REAL problem is with people why say that EVERYTHING they need to know is in > their own particular religious book, whether it be the Torah, Bible, Lotus > Sutra, or whatever, so they aren't interested in being "educated". The only > hope against these idiots is a world united against stupidity, though this > appears impossible here in the U.S. that is >50% Christian. > > Understandably. It may be unfortunate, but conflict is intellectually >> justified and even good for us when we don't know the answers. >> > > BTW, you are apparently ignorant of the advanced dispute resolution methods > that I am referring to. It would be REALLY interesting if somehow I could > get your up to speed, so that you could help me explain these to others. > >> >> So I suspect a general but limited multi-field problem-solver won't >> work for this and other reasons - although it's certainly worth thinking >> about. >> > > At minimum, EVERY historically recorded resolved dispute could be > incorporated, so that at least we would stop being stymied by disputes whose > solution is known (to someone somewhere). > > Point of clarification: Dr. Eliza only incorporates previously known and > understood cause-and-effect chain links. If a new problem involves enough > UNknown links so that it cannot be solved by affecting known links, then Dr. > Eliza will be unable to solve the problem. I am NOT claiming that Dr. Eliza > can solve all problems, only those that are constructed with > known vulnerable cause-and-effect chain links. > > However, the problem list you provided earlier in this email all have > plenty of historical precedents to draw upon. Sun Tsu (the ancient Chinese > philosopher) said a number of things that are VERY applicable to our present > economy. Summarizing: The U.S. won't be around very much longer, so there is > little reason for Al Queda to waste any more martyrs attacking it. > > Steve Richfield > =============== > >> Isn't this sort of behavior completely logical? If you try something >> new and it is bad, then you have had one bad experience. However, if it is >> good, then you have many good experiences. Hence. the *average* value of >> trying something new is many times the value of the best thing that you now >> have access to, because of this multiplicative effect. >> >> IMHO, illogical researchers were looking for an "illogical" (to them) >> phenomenon that was in fact completely logical. >> >> Jim's God >> Steve Richfield >> =============== >> >> On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Jim's God was obviously listening to my last post, because I immediately >>> came across this. I wouldn't make too much of it directly, but let me >>> redefine its significance - there are parts of the brain and body that LIKE >>> not knowing what to do, that LIKE creative, non-algorithmic problems. All >>> you've got to do now is work out how to design a computer like that: >>> >>> "Neuroscientists discover a sense of adventure >>> >>> Wellcome Trust scientists have identified a key region of the brain which >>> encourages us to be adventurous. The region, located in a primitive area of >>> the brain, is activated when we choose unfamiliar options, suggesting an >>> evolutionary advantage for sampling the unknown. It may also explain why >>> re-branding of familiar products encourages to pick them off the supermarket >>> shelves. >>> >>> In an experiment carried out at the Wellcome Trust Centre for >>> Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London), volunteers were shown a >>> selection of images, which they had already been familiarised with. Each >>> card had a unique probability of reward attached to it and over the course >>> of the experiment, the volunteers would be able to work out which selection >>> would provide the highest rewards. However, when unfamiliar images were >>> introduced, the researchers found that volunteers were more likely to take a >>> chance and select one of these options than continue with their familiar - >>> and arguably safer - option. >>> >>> Using fMRI scanners, which measure blood flow in the brain to highlight >>> which areas are most active, Dr Bianca Wittmann and colleagues showed that >>> when the subjects selected an unfamiliar option, an area of the brain known >>> as the ventral striatum lit up, indicating that it was more active. The >>> ventral striatum is in one of the evolutionarily primitive regions of the >>> brain, suggesting that the process can be advantageous and will be shared by >>> many animals. >>> >>> "Seeking new and unfamiliar experiences is a fundamental behavioural >>> tendency in humans and animals," says Dr Wittmann. "It makes sense to try >>> new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a >>> monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this >>> involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of >>> food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious." >>> >>> When we make a particular choice or carry out a particular action which >>> turns out to be beneficial, it is rewarded by a release of neurotransmitters >>> such as dopamine. These rewards help us learn which behaviours are >>> preferable and advantageous and worth repeating. The ventral striatum is one >>> of the key areas involved in processing rewards in the brain. Although the >>> researchers cannot say definitively from the fMRI scans how novelty seeking >>> is being rewarded, Dr Wittmann believes it is likely to be through dopamine >>> release. >>> >>> However, whilst rewarding the brain for making novel choices may prove >>> advantageous in encouraging us to make potentially beneficial choices, it >>> may also make us more susceptible to exploitation. >>> >>> "I might have my own favourite choice of chocolate bar, but if I see a >>> different bar repackaged, advertising its 'new, improved flavour', my search >>> for novel experiences may encourage me to move away from my usual choice," >>> says Dr Wittmann. "This introduces the danger of being sold 'old wine in a >>> new skin' and is something that marketing departments take advantage of." >>> >>> Rewarding the brain for novel choices could have a more serious side >>> effect, argues Professor Nathaniel Daw, now at New York University, who also >>> worked on the study. >>> >>> "The novelty bonus may be useful in helping us make complex, uncertain >>> decisions, but it clearly has a downside," says Professor Daw. "In humans, >>> increased novelty-seeking may play a role in gambling and drug addiction, >>> both of which are mediated by malfunctions in dopamine release." >>> >>> Source: Wellcome Trust >>> http://www.physorg.com/news133617811.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 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> >> <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
