Richard,
Good. Glad you're replied. Let's have a go.
Perhaps there are misunderstandings here - because you see if programming
"creative idea-hopping" were "trivially easy", as you suggest, even just in
principle, you should have no problems designing a program that will make
you a billionaire. Nothing is easy about what you did -
for either AI or AGI. And no one in AGI has ever attempted creative
problems.Perhaps you can show me wrong.
1. THE CENTRAL ISSUE - I suggest, to put it v. v. broadly at first, is
this:
*are there general logical procedures that can tackle creative problems,
esp. high-level creative problems, ( like that of the engram)?.
you say : yes, in principle easy; I say: impossible.(and actually worse -
wrong even in principle)
If there are, you should be able to show the merest outline of either:
a) a logical procedure underlying your own creative thinking as discussed,
OR
b) a *normative* logical procedure for creative problems generally
I'm going to make that challenge as reasonable and accessible as possible.
for discussion, so let's define the two key terms here further
2. GENERAL LOGICAL PROCEDURES. I focus on a "logical procedure" to make
this simple. A logical procedure should actually be capable of elaboration
into a program, which can eventually determine every step and stage of an
agent's thinking about a creative problem. But I'm not asking for a whole
program, just the merest outline or even just a central element of the
logical procedure at its heart.
To clear up possible confusions, I take logic v. v broadly to incl not just
the more formal kind, but. all the different types of program Jim B listed
(and from what I've heard) yours, Ben's and, Pei's.
Logic is basically a set of rules about how to combine certain objects. And
a logical problem involves following those rules in a structured,
inevitable way to construct new forms from those objects. So if A leads to
B, and B leads to C then you can proceed logically and inevitably to
conclude that A leads to C.
Logic is continually being revolutionised and sophisticated, but none of
the revolutions actually transcend logic. So those objects can now be fuzzy,
probable, uncertain, complex and even comprise whole programs. And the rules
can be evolutionary so that the objects and even the rules themselves keep
changing.
But however sophisticated it becomes, logic is still *structured", "formal"
thinking. In the end, at any given time, A always leads to C, (in the
appropriate kind of
logic), even if's only with a probability of 0.4
Logic is completely opposed to illogic - *unstructured,* *free-form*
thinking. A, above,
cannot lead to A - "because well it looks good." C cannot lead to A -
"because well I want to break the rules", and A cannot lead to AC -
"because well they look prettier that way". Those are illogical forms of
thinking. False thinking. Wrong. Logic is not "anything goes," "no rules
apply" thinking. (I trust you'll agree).
2B. EXAMPLE OF LOGICAL PROCEDURE. So here's an example of the sort of thing
I'm looking for, (and even just an element will do) - my first,
very cackhanded, (so make allowances) attempt to define the central logical
procedure in GA's:.
"1.Take a set of known candidate solutions for a problem - (or,say candidate
causes for an effect-to-be-explained)
2.Combine those solutions/causes according to certain rules.
3.Test the resulting solutions/causes to see which come closest to actually
explaining the problem/effect.
4.Select the best subset, and recombine - possibly according to new rules,
which will be recombinations of the old rules.
5.Test the resulting solutions....
and so on , until you arrive at a solution that actually works,
or, a cause that really starts to explain the effect "
By all means redefine my ham attempt, but hopefully we can agree that that
is in essence a general logical procedure, capable of elaboration into a
comprehensive program.
And it LOOKS at first sight, as if it might have promise for creativity -
even if it requires
work.
(There have been a whole "mix n'match" family of AGI theories and
psychological
theories of creativity that resemble GA's - all
inspired by the basic idea - " take existing ideas about the creative
problem and mix'em up a bit." - an idea which many
clearly find appealing. Your idea as best I could understand it a while
ago, involved taking whole sets of alternative candidate programs, and not
just ideas)
So I ask for just an outline or even just an element of a procedure like the
above. But I also ask that you at least begin to show me how it
applies to a particular creative problem or two.
Anyone can produce convincing logical arguments in
abstraction - we can prove logically that a hare can
never overtake a tortoise who has a head start in a race. But as soon as you
begin to test that logic - and apply it to real hare/tortoise races or
similar, it's obviously nonsense..Science and technology demand that you
test your ideas, (or in this case begin to do so).
3.CREATIVE PROBLEMS. I won't try and define all creative problems - they
cover every area of our culture & life (& far outnumber rational/logical
problems) To make it simple, I will define a nevertheless huge subclass (to
which you can try to apply a logical procedure) - problems of creative
DETECTION - (which cover most scientific theorising).
These are problems where you can see certain visible effects and have to
hypothesize invisible causes - you can see a body moving in a certain way &
you have to posit an invisible body that somehow moves it, (those terms to
be taken in the most general sense possible) - as indeed in crime detection,
where you are confronted with a dead, murdered body and must posit the
invisible murderer and act of murder.
3a. THE ENGRAM is a classic example of a creative detection problem. Humans
can visibly process information - e.g hear and remember words. So what are
the invisible causes, the cell processes perhaps, that enable the brain to
record and/or replay that information? That's what you had a crack at
detecting.
3b.CANCER. We can see tumours growing at great speed. What are the
invisible causes - the invisible parts and/or behaviours of cells or any
other body parts that
produce this hypergrowth?
Or let's take a *low*-level creative problem - because most are very
low-level and everyday
- something you could solve within minutes or hours rather than, like the
last two, spending possibly the rest of your life on.
3c. LOST KEY. A stranger has lost their key somewhere in their bedroom, and
can't locate it. Find it. You're not familiar with the room and have no
easy aids like metal detectors,. Note this has
much the same basic structure as the other problems You can
obviously see the bedroom, and you must hypothesize, as you search,
where the invisible key might lie in it..
3cont. NATURE OF CREATIVITY - INCOMPLETE DOMAIN SETS. I've just defined
creative detection problems in terms of their content/subject matter. I
won't try to do a full job of defining creative problems formally. But I
will - v. briefly - single out one key formal dimension of them, so as to
remind you why they are indeed central to AGI.
In a rational, logical problem, you start with a complete domain set. You
know everything you need to know about how to combine those objects (A,B,C
etc for example) and what kinds of objects they are - or at any rate, you
know how to find out - where to go for further information, if you need any.
But in a creative problem, you normally have an incomplete, perhaps v.
incomplete domain set. You actually don't know all the domains that may
apply. For example, faced with the engram problem, and how the brain
records, you and we don't know whether the relevant recording domains are
biochemical, electrical, magnetic, molecular, quantum, dendritic or what.
And no one can authoritatively tell us. And you don't know whether
altogether new domains aren't needed. The creative problemsolver, typically
won't know all the domains personally. And they may like you have to
hypothesize a whole new domain such as "neuroradio-ing." . In creative
problems, then, one has to extend one's domain set - to *incorporate new
domains* and *find new domains* -or to put it another way, *cross domains.*
This is the core of AGI, anyway you define it. The basic feature of an AGI
is that it can be programmed with a skill, a specific domain set, to begin
with; but it must then be able to learn a new skill by itself, without
further programming, and with only limited guidance. It will therefore have,
in part, to discover some domains in the new skill set, by itself, and
incorporate them. This is how humans learn skills. How do you learn soccer?
Basically someone thrusts you on a pitch and gives you a few instructions
like "kick the ball at goal.." but you have to learn the rest as you go
along. And although you may receive considerable guidance, nobody ever
actually lays out all the subskills and domains for you - tells you every
subskill like trapping balls, flying headers, kicking balls over heads
perfoming mock dives, etc. You have to find them out for yourself, and
maybe even invent some, such as forms of cheating. So an AGI must be able
to find, incorporate and cross new domains - and creative problems are the
prime, focussed test of this.
Summary. So how could a General Logical Procedure begin to apply to
one or more of these creative problems? You say it is in principle trivially
easy to produce ideas about such problems.
Well, if you coud do that for not even a true AGI, but say a
Scientist's-Assistant program that could generate all
manner of ideas about scientific detection problems, like cancer and
thousands of other unsolved diseases, (even
with little or no understanding), that would be of immense value, and almost
certainly make you a billionaire in the Venter class, and Steve R would
probably sell you his soul for it.
I think you think creativity is easy, because you've never actually applied
your AGI ideas to particular creative problems like these, and started
thinking how it
or any logical procedure or program would actually work practically step by
step. You've thought that it looks easy in principle - and I can
understand that, but it isn't - in fact it's impossible - in practice. Show
me wrong.
4.AGI'S CREATIVE BLOCK. Let me also justify my initial claim : I maintain
that not just you but no one in AGI past or present has ever truly attempted
to deal with creativity -
which is *the* problem of AGI, as Ben, I think, to judge by his book, and
arguably most commentators will agree. And I'm talking of AGI broadly over
the last 50 years, incl. say the "human-level intelligence" movement of
Minsky & co
It's a v. serious charge. I am saying AGI, wh. you could equally call
Artificial Creative Intelligence, has a more or less total "Creative
Block" - simply isn't engaging with its central business. Rather like all
those banks who never did their central business of properly checking their
liabilities on derivatives - only this is the equivalent of not checking
them at all.
Now I can see how many here find that charge difficult to understand let
alone accept. Surely people *are* dealing with these problems?
So just by way of immediate symptoms, start with this group. There
has been next to no discussion here of creative problems - (& how AGI might
solve them) Almost nothing. In years and years. Lots of discussion about
problems of logic,maths NLP and complexity etc. etc. Almost no
discussion of how AGI can tackle creative problems. I've screamed about it
repeatedly - but rather than being thanked for the
reminder I almost always get roundly abused.
If you stop to think about it, that is v. weird. This is not only *the*
problem of AGI, it's one of the most exciting problems you can possibly
think about. And yet no discussion.
Serious creative people know that you have to have an "ideas
quota" pace Edison - IOW keep coming up with lots of ideas. AGI-ers should
be tossing ideas around about creativity all the time, if they're serious -
as you & others did about the engram recently. But nothing.
Ok, that doesn't necessarily prove anything re wider AGI - but it is in fact
more or less symptomatic of the whole field.
So what's been happening? And why do people have problems recognising this
creative block?
Well people have certainly been developing all kinds of theories and systems
of AGI. Like Novamente and Pei and Franklin & many more. And yes some of
these systems seem to some if not many to have promise, possibly
great promise. But when you look closer, you find that it is always because
people have been persuaded by logical arguments (and hype) about what are
actually logical systems - and those systems have
never been *applied directly* to creative problems, only
much simpler, rational/logical problems. Take Pei's -
sounds really good - "non-axiomatic" NARS - I thought that sounded great
many years ago. And then you look, and what's it being applied to? -
syllogisms. Nothing to do with creativity.
Or take Hofstadter's Copycat and Fluid Concepts. Here's a man who
understands the problem pretty well - he's focussing particularly on
analogy. But when you look at Copycat, you find that what it actually deals
with is problems of *logical* analogy - in a single "microdomain".[sic].
Analogies between sequences of letters. Again nothing actually to do with
creativity and creative analogy - as he is fully aware of . [ In case any
are confused, problems of
creative analogy involve producing surprising analogies
ACROSS domains. Like that from Ron between "B" and "13", between a letter
and a number domain A very simple problem of
creative analogy then would be: "find me another such analogy between a
letter and a number" or better still, a letter and a human figure. No AGI
systems AFAIK attempt any such problems - or in
any way to cross domains.].
Ben seems to me a good example of how people think they're dealing with
creative problems - and yet aren't. When I complained recently about no
creative discussion - (and added that he clearly hadn't developed the
necessary metacognitive skills for such discussion :) ) - he said basically
"hey I've written a whole book about creativity where I do address creative
problems.
From Complexity to Creativity." And yes there he presents general,
basically fairly standard approaches to AGI: like "emergent dynamical
pattern,
form creation by genetic algorithms, fitness landscapes, autopoietic thought
systems, " but look closer, and he doesn't actually apply any of them to a
single, real creative problem and show how it might be helpful. He talks,
for example, about Kekule's classic problem of finding the benzene molecule
structure but in relation to "inspiration". He doesn't try to show how
any of the above approaches might help solve this or any more modern
creative problems, - (like the ones I've given).
Now no heavyweight psychological thinker about creativity would dream of
doing that - people like Koestler, De Bono, James Adams et al - all apply
their creativity theories directly to actual creative problems. It's basic.
Ben doesn't. [although he is always happy to deal with logical & math
problems]. And he doesn't seem aware of what a giant hole that is. AFAICT
he's spent at least ten years developing AGI ideas without ever applying
them to
a single creative problem, and may well spend the next ten in the same
fashion.
What about what you might call "Creative AI" - that quite large section
of AI that very explicitly seeks to address "creative" problems - to produce
music, story outlines, art, creative figures and much more? Again, when you
look
closer you find what they actually do is take what are really existing,
readymade solutions to creative problems - and elaborate them. So Francisco
Pereira, of "Creativity and Artificial Intelligence" - a pretty good book
BTW - that draws especially from Creative Blending, - takes figures like a
horse and dragon, and mutates them, and produces new hybrid animals. Well,
this and other stuff may sometimes be very useful, even impressive
and there are some very interesting results, but as Pereira himself would
acknowledge, it's not truly creative - it doesn't involve *finding*
solutions to creative problems in the first place. It's all basically about
producing hack variations on themes that have been given to the computer. A
comparable true, not too major
creative problem here
might be something like: "find another animal that's shaped like a snail"
(rather than being given one by the programmer) - or "find a machine and
cross it with a horse - in a way that makes *functional* sense (and that
you, and not your programmer, can recognize as such".
Wherever you look, AGI-ers are not dealing with creative problems. They may
swear they want to - but they never do. Hence the whole
dismal history of AI/AGI (not, I stress, narrow AI), which has been a cycle
of massive hype about one new approach after another followed years later by
disillusionment - - as Jim B partly chronicles - when it becomes finally
obvious that those "magic sauces" (among which I personally would include
"probability," "uncertainty," fuzziness, and "complexity") have actually
nothing to do with creativity/ general intelligence at all. [BTW Peter Voss
is another case of this - claims to true AGI, followed by "oh no it isn't
really."]
And yet AGI-ers could have saved themselves years of wasted time - and
still can - if they'd started testing their ideas from the very beginning on
appropriate creative problems. It should be *mandatory*.
(BTW if you want creative problems for your particular field, ask).
5.THE NATURE OF CREATIVE PROBLEMS (& AGI).
So I wonder whether you or anyone else can break with 50 years of tradition
and finally deal, constructively, with creative problems (& AGI) - in this
case, show me how a logical approach can possibly be beneficial in any way.
(N.B. logic will almost invariably be necessary en passant - but I'm talking
about the creative parts of those problems).
You, as a cognitive scientist, should realise that there have been hundreds,
if not thousands of psychology books on creativity, and I don't know of a
single one - do you? - that recommends logic or rational thinking. But there
are an awful lot, if not the great majority, like De Bono whom I recently
quoted, , that tell
you very firmly *not* to use logic - and advise you how to get over your
fears about *abandoning* logic and rationality - fears which form a major
part of
people's...yes, creative block.
I won't attempt a formal structured argument here of why logic won't work,
and what will - I'll do that in a while.
But I'll give you a clue - in the shape of a simple creative problem, chosen
because it's at once representative in form of all
creative problems, incl. the ones I've given, and v. easy to visualise.
Everyone from kids to adults
can do this problem (and it is a true problem BTW). You guys will think it
silly, but it's actually v. profound, as I'll explain in detail another
time. It's this:
Creative Problem: DRAW A FLYING HOUSE.
(A kid's drawing or rough sketch will do).
The profound questions here which warrant a great deal of thought are: What
is the logically correct answer to that problem? What is the logically
correct form of flying house? How can I test whether the flying house drawn
by the problemsolver is logically true or false?
Profound and also irrelevant questions. And, as I think Jim B may have been
partly getting at, fundamentally wrong.IN PRINCIPLE as well as practice.
Logic just doesn't apply to this creative problem -
*or* to the engram/cancer etc.* or any creative problem. Neither cognitively
nor *in formal/philosophical principle.* Or to your own creative
thinking/"idea-hopping". For example, you took an idea from a book of
fiction. That's logically and probably
scientifically outrageous. But it's legitimate and imaginative creative
thinking.
Rational/logical problems are of a *fundamentally different type* to
creative problems (oh, and AGI). The former are structured and formal. The
latter unstructured and free form. Like a design for a flying house. The
former require
logical thinking. And creativity requires... Well you remember all those
completely
illogical forms of thinking? A leads to A and AC etc? That's what
creativity requires.
Anyone care to show me - and my army of psychologists - wrong?
M T wrote:
Richard,
You missed Mike Tintner's explanation . . . .
Mark,
.... Right ....
So you think maybe what we've got here is a radical influx of globally
entangled free-association bosons?
Richard,
Q.E.D. Well done.
Now tell me how you connected my "ridiculous" [or however else you might
want to style it] argument with your argument re "bosons" - OTHER than by
free association? What *prior* set of associations in your mind, or
"prior, preprogrammed set of rules, what logicomathematical thinking
enabled you to form that connection? (And it would be a good idea to
apply it to your previous joke re Blue - because they must be *generally
applicable* principles)
And what prior principles enabled you to spontaneously and creatively
form the precise association of "radical influx of globally entagled
free-association bosons" - to connect RADICAL INFLUX with GLOBALLY
ENTANGLED ..and FREE ASSOCIATION and BOSONS.
You were being v. funny, right? But humour is domain-switching (which
you do multiple times above) and that's what you/AGI can't do or explain
computationally.
***
Ironically, before I saw your post I had already written (and shelved) a
P.S. Here it is:
"P.S. Note BTW - because I'm confident you're probably still thinking
"what's that weird nutter on about? what's this got to do with AGI?" -
the very best evidence for my claim. That claim is now that the brain is
* potentially infinitely domain-switching on both
a) a basic level, and
b) a meta-level -
i.e. capable of forming endless new connections/associations on a higher
level too and so, forming infinite new modes of reasoning, ( new *ways*
of associating ideas as well as new association)
The very best evidence are *logic and mathematics themselves*. For logic
and mathematics ceaselessly produce new branches of themselves. New
logics. New numbers, New kinds of geometry. *New modes of reasoning.*
And an absolutely major problem for logic and mathematics (and current
computation) is that they *cannot explain themselves* - cannot explain
how these new modes of reasoning are generated/ There are no logical and
mathematical or other formal ways of explaining these new branches.
Rational numbers cannot be used to deduce irrational numbers and thence
imaginary numbers. Trigonometry cannot be used to deduce calculus.
Euclidean geometry cannot be used to deduce riemannian to deduce
topology. And so on. Aristotelian logic cannot explain fuzzy logic cannot
explain PLN.
Logicomathematical modes of reasoning are *not* generated
logicomathematically.but creatively -as both Ben, I think, and
certainly Franklin have acknowledged.
And clearly the brain is capable of forming infinitely new logics and
mathematics - infinite new forms of reasoning - by
*non-logicomathematical*/*nonformal* means. By, I suggest, free
association among other means.
********************************
It's easy to make cheap, snide comments. But can either of you actually
engage directly with the problem of domain-switching, and argue
constructively about particular creative problems and thinking - using
actual evidence? I've seen literally no instances from either of you (or
indeed, though this may at first seem surprising and may need a little
explanation - anyone in the AI community).
let's take an actual example of good creative thinking happening on the
fly - and what I've called directed free association -
It's by one Richard Loosemore. You as well as others thought pretty
creatively about the problem of the engram a while back. Here's the
transcript of that thinking - as I said, good creative thinking, really
trying to have new ideas (as opposed to just being snide here).:
Now perhaps you can tell me what prior *logic* or programming produced
the flow of your own ideas here? How do you get from one to the next?
"Richard: Now you're just trying to make me think ;-). 1.
Okay, try this. 2.
[heck, you don't have to: I am just playing with ideas here...] 3.
The methylation pattern has not necessarily been shown to *only* store
information in a distributed pattern of activation - the jury's out on
that one (correct me if I'm wrong). 4.5
Suppose that the methylation end caps are just being used as a way
station for some mechanism whose *real* goal is to make modifications to
some patterns in the junk DNA. 6. So, here I am suggesting that the
junk
DNA of any particular neuron is being used to code for large numbers of
episodic memories (one memory per DNA strand, say), with each neuron
being used as a redundant store of many episodes. 7. The same episode is
stored in multiple neurons, but each copy is complete. 8. When we
observe
changes in the methylation patterns, perhaps these are just part of the
transit mechanism, not the final destination for the pattern. 9. To put
it
in the language that Greg Bear would use, the endcaps were just part of
the "radio" system. (http://www.gregbear.com/books/darwinsradio.cfm)
10.
Now suppose that part of the junk sequences that code for these memories
are actually using a distributed coding scheme *within* the strand 11.
(in
the manner of a good old fashioned backprop neural net, shall we say).
12.
That would mean that, contrary to what I said in the above paragraph,
the individual strands were coding a bunch of different episodic memory
traces, not just one. 13.
(It is even possible that the old idea of flashbulb memories may survive
the critiques that have been launched against it ... 14. and in that
case,
it could be that what we are talking about here is the mechanism for
storing that particular set of memories. 15. And in that case, perhaps
the
system expects so few of them, that all DNA strands everywhere in the
system are dedicated to storing just the individual's store of flashbulb
memories).16.
Now, finally, suppose that there is some mechanism for "radioing" these
memories to distribute them around the system ... and that the radio
network extends as far as the germ DNA.17.
Now, the offspring could get the mixed flashbulb memories of its
parents, in perhaps very dilute or noisy form. 18.
This assumes that whatever coding scheme is used to store the
information can somehow transcend the coding schemes used by different
individuals. 19. Since we do not yet know how much common ground there
is
between the knowledge storage used by individuals yet, this is still
possible.20
There: I invented a possible mechanism. .. 21.
Does it work?" ...22.
[[[Obviously you could break this up into far more sections]]]]]
***
Like I said, good creative thinking. Are you prepared to do some more and
analyse a practical example of your own thinking? You say you're a
serious cognitive scientist - why not do some serious, investigative
cognitive science?
You argued a long time back that of course programs could produce
creative thinking. Good Now apply that argument (or any similar argument)
to your own thinking.
How did you get from sentence one to two - that neat connection from
"trying to make me think" to "okay try this" ? Was that play on "try"
preordained or as I suggest, free switching?
In fact, take ANY sentence above and show me how it flows *logically,* or
in any inevitable formal way from any other sentence, according to some
*general* principle. (Remember your explanation must be capable of
accounting not just for any given pair of sentences, but other similar
sentence pairs that you have already uttered, or will yet utter)
Do you always conclude, for example, with something like "There I
invented a possible mechanism" and always follow up with a question like
"Does it work?" Or is it possible that you actually freely associate and
sometimes in similar situations might make instead a positive statement
like "It just might work.." or a more negative statement like "Probably
won't work, but what the hell?" or not a statement at all but a single
word like "Hmmm..." Or instead a justification "Note that all that
matters here is that it's "possible" rather than "probable"?"
Do you always in similar situations connect an idea - 11. "distributed
coding scheme" with an analogy - 12- "backprop neural net" or maybe
sometimes proceed immediately to further evidence for the idea ?
Hey, this shouldn't be difficult at all - you've got a vast body of
sentences in your posts alone to look at.. If you're right, you should be
able to come up with loads of examples of
logicomathematically/computationally consistent thinking.
But there is a very considerable body of scientific psychology that will
assert that the creative problem you were tackling is "ill-structured,"
and therefore any attempt to solve it must also be ill-structured, - or,
in my terms, free association.
Can you provide a single piece of evidence otherwise?
(Can you even provide a single *normative* argument why any creative,
ill-structured problem *should* be tackled by some pre-existing formally,
well- structured method? Try focussing your argument on the engram
problem)
I suggest that your entire AI practice - and all the formal,
logicomathematical forms of reasoning you espouse - are quite incapable
of explaining or reproducing your own actual thinking. (And that
includes having thousands of computers going through some process of
selection).
I also suggest that one of the underlying reasons why you guys are
laughing is because you've actually never done any serious analysis of
the stream of human thought and problemsolving - and you just don't
have the metacognitive tools to handle it. You know all about
metacognitively analysing logicomathematical/computational problems (none
of which are creative) but next to nothing about analysing real, actual
human problemsolving, especially the creative variety - the kind done by
general intelligences that actually work - the real business of AGI.
P.S. The only thing that is predictable about how you will reply here is
that you won't take the opportunity to engage constructively with actual
examples of actual thinking. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, because
it's a great pity. Your engram thinking really is creative.
Richard:
I'll bite.
{But since it's suppertime, I have to keep it short).
It is so *trivially* easy to IN PRINCIPLE make an AGI do something like
the creative idea-hopping that I did above, that I don't understand your
question.
You say the same thing over and over: you say that "logical" AI could not
do it. In a sense that is true, because there is a certain sort of
logical AI that might not be able to do a very good job of it.
But that is not a general fact of any significance.
A question: you have read the description of my molecular framework in
both the Loosemore & Harley paper, and in the recent consciousness paper,
right? Can you not see that such a system is utterly unlike anything that
you would call a "logical" system.
I could make a longer attempt to explain, but I am not sure you will
believe me or understand what I say, based on my previous attempts to do
so. I don't mean to be mean, that is just an honest assessment.
-------------------------------------------
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=126863270-d7b0b0
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
