I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ... it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say neither of us convinced each other ;-) ...
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's > Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to this > theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in > physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to emergence/deliberate > creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically - and > correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of science > is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every form > throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also > explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be > AGI. > > In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues: > > "we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to > **engineer** systems " > > Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how > you get species evolving from each other with "creative," scientifically > unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as > design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the > "designer"). > > In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its > particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the > science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two > are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human and > animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain > and the evolutionary path of AGI's). > > > Richard:> > >> Perhaps now that there are other physicists (besides myself) making these >> claims, people in the AGI community will start to take more seriously the >> implications for their own field .... >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026764.100 >> >> For those who do not have a New Scientist subscription, the full article >> refers to a paper at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151. >> >> Mile Gu et al looked at the possibility of explaining emergent properties >> of Ising glasses and managed to prove that those properties are not >> reducible. >> >> Myself, I do not need the full force of Gu's proof, since I only claim >> that emergent properties can be *practically* impossible to work with. >> >> It is worth noting that his chosen target systems (Ising glasses) are very >> closely linked to some approaches to AGI, since these have been proposed by >> some neural net people as the fundamental core of their approach. >> >> I am sure that I can quote a short extract from the full NS article >> without treading on the New Scientist copyright. It is illuminating because >> what Gu et al refer to is the problem of calculating the lowest energy state >> of the system, which approximately corresponds to the state of maximum >> "understanding" in the class of systems that I am most interested in: >> >> BEGIN QUOTE: >> >> Using the model, the team focused on whether the pattern that the atoms >> adopt under various scenarios, such as a state of lowest energy, could be >> calculated from knowledge of those forces. They found that in some >> scenarios, the pattern of atoms could not be calculated from knowledge of >> the forces - even given unlimited computing power. In mathematical terms, >> the system is considered "formally undecidable". >> >> "We were able to find a number of properties that were simply decoupled >> from the fundamental interactions," says Gu. Even some really simple >> properties of the model, such as the fraction of atoms oriented in one >> direction, cannot be computed. >> >> This result, says Gu, shows that some of the models scientists use to >> simulate physical systems may actually have properties that cannot be linked >> to the behaviour of their parts (www.arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151). This, in >> turn, may help explain why our description of nature operates at many >> levels, rather than working from just one. "A 'theory of everything' might >> not explain all natural phenomena," says Gu. "Real understanding may require >> further experiments and intuition at every level." >> >> Some physicists think the work offers a promising scientific boost for the >> delicate issue of emergence, which tends to get swamped with philosophical >> arguments. John Barrow at the University of Cambridge calls the results >> "really interesting", but thinks one element of the proof needs further >> study. He points out that Gu and colleagues derived their result by studying >> an infinite system, rather than one of large but finite size, like most >> natural systems. "So it's not entirely clear what their results mean for >> actual finite systems," says Barrow. >> >> Gu agrees, but points out that this was not the team's goal. He also >> argues that the idealised mathematical laws that scientists routinely use to >> describe the world often refer to infinite systems. "Our results suggest >> that some of these laws probably cannot be derived from first principles," >> he says. >> >> END QUOTE. >> >> >> I particularly liked his choice of words when he said: "We were able to >> find a number of properties that were simply decoupled from the fundamental >> interactions..." >> >> Now where have I heard that before, I wonder? >> >> >> >> Richard Loosemore >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> 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/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
