Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
irrationality - is used to describe thinking and actions which are, or appear to be, less useful or logical than the other alternatives. and rational would be the opposite of that. This line of thinking is more concerned with the behaviour of the entities, which requires Goal orienting and other things. An irrational being is NOT working effectively towards the goal according to this. This may be necessary in order to determine new routes, unique solutions to a problem, and according to the description will be included in most AGI's I have heard described so far. The other definition which seems to be in the air around here is irrational - acting without reason or logic. An entity that acts without reason or logic entirely is a totally random being, will choose to do something for no reason, and will not ever find any goals or solutions without accidentily hitting them. In AGI terms, any entity given multiple equally rewarding alternative paths to a goal may randomly select any of them. This may be considered acting without reason, as there was no real basis for choosing 1 as opposed to 2, but it also may be very reasonable, as given any situation where either path can be chosen, choosing one is reasonable. (choosing no path at that point would indeed be irrational and pointless) I havnt seen any solutions proposed that require any real level of acting without reason and neural nets and others are all reasonable, though the reasoning may be complex and hidden from us, or hard to understand. The example given previously about the computer system that changes its thinking in the middle of discovering a solution, is not irrational, as it is just contuing to follow its rules, it can still change those rules as it allows, and may have very good reason for doing so. James Ratcliff Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard: Mike, I think you are going to have to be specific about what you mean by irrational because you mostly just say that all the processes that could possibly exist in computers are rational, and I am wondering what else is there that irrational could possibly mean. I have named many processes that seem to me to fit the irrational definition, but without being too clear about it you have declared them all to be just rational, so now I have no idea what you can be meaning by the word. Richard, Er, it helps to read my posts. From my penultimate post to you: If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. A rational system follows a set of rules in solving a problem (which can incl. rules that self-modify according to metarules) ; a creative, irrational system can change/break/create any and all rules (incl. metarules) at any point of solving a problem - the ultimate, by definition, in adaptivity. (Much like you, and indeed all of us, change the rules of engagement much of the time in our discussions here). Listen, no need to reply - because you're obviously not really interested. To me that's ironic, though, because this is absolutely the most central issue there is in AGI. But no matter. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74598181-2b0ae5
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Richard: If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say except ... why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is possible to paint things that are not representational. Jeez, Richard, of course, it's possible... we all agree that AGI is possible (well in my case, only with a body). The question is - how? !*? That's what we're here for - to have IDEAS.. rather than handwave... (see, I knew you would) ...in this case, about how a program can be maximally adaptive - change course at any point Okay here's my v.v. rough idea - the core two lines or principles of a much more complex program - for engaging in any activity, solving any problem - with maximum adaptivity 1. Choose any reasonable path - and any reasonable way to move along it - to the goal. [and then move] [reasonable = likely to be as or more profitable than any of the other paths you have time to consider] 2. If you have not yet reached the goal, and if you have not any other superior goals [anything better to do], choose any other reasonable path - and way of moving - that will lead you closer to the goal. This presupposes what the human brain clearly has - the hierarchical ability to recognize literally ANYTHING as a thing, path, way of moving/ move or goal. It can perceive literally anything from these multifunctional perspectives. This presupposes that something like these concepts are fundamental to the brain's operation. This also presupposes what you might say are - roughly - the basic principles of neuroeconomics and decision theory - that the brain does and any adaptive brain must, continually assess every action for profitability - for its rewards, risks and costs. [The big deal here is those two words any - and any path etc that is as profitable - those two words/ concepts give maximal freedom and adaptivity - and true freedom] What we're talking about here BTW is when you think about it, a truly universal program for soving, and learning how to solve, literally any problem. [Oh, there has to be a third line or clause - and a lot more too of course - that says: 1a. If you can't see any reasonable paths etc - look for some.] So what are your ideas, Richard, here? Have you actually thought about it? Jeez, what do we pay you all this money for? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73929597-fb8991
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike Tintner wrote: Richard: If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say except ... why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is possible to paint things that are not representational. Jeez, Richard, of course, it's possible... we all agree that AGI is possible (well in my case, only with a body). The question is - how? !*? That's what we're here for - to have IDEAS.. rather than handwave... (see, I knew you would) ...in this case, about how a program can be maximally adaptive - change course at any point Hold on a minute there. What I have been addressing is just your initial statement: Cognitive science treats the human mind as basically a programmed computational machine much like actual programmed computers - and programs are normally conceived of as rational. - coherent sets of steps etc. The *only* point I have been trying to establish is that when you said and programs are normally conceived of as rational this made no sense because programs can do anything at all, rational or irrational. Now you say Jeez, Richard, of course, it's possible [to build programs that are either rational or irrational] . The question is - how? !*? No, that is another question, one that I have not been addressing. My only goal was to establish that you cannot say that programs built by cognitive scientists are *necessarily* rational (in you usage), or that they are normally conceived of as rational. Most of the theories/models/programs built by cognitive scientists are completely neutral on the question of rational issues of the sort you talk about, because they are about small aspects of cognition where those issues don't have any bearing. There are an infinite number of ways to build a cognitive model in such a way that it fits your definition of irrational, just as there are an infinite number of ways to use paint in such a way that the resulting picture is abstract rather than representational. Nothing would be proved by my producing an actual example of an irrational cognitive model, just as nothing would be proved by my painting an abstract painting just to prove that that is possible. I think you have agreed that computers and computational models can in principle be used to produce systems that fit your definition of irrational, and since that is what I was trying to establish, I think we're done, no? If you don't agree, then there is probably something wrong with your picture of what computers can do (how they can be programmed), and it would be helpful if you would say what exactly it is about them that makes you think this is not possible. Looking at your suggestion below, I am guessing that you might see an AGI program as involving explicit steps of the sort If x is true, then consider these factors and then proceed to the next step. That is an extrarodinarily simplistic picture of what copmputers systems, in general are able to do. So simplistic as to be not general at all. For example, in my system, decisions about what to do next are the result of hundreds or thousands of atoms (basic units of knowledge, all of which are active processors) coming together in a very context-dependent way and trying to form coherent models of the situation. This cloud of knowledge atoms will cause an outcome to emerge, but they almost never go through a sequence of steps, like a linear computer program, to generate an outcome. As a result I cannot exactly predict what they will do on a particular occasion (they will have a general consistency in their behavior, but that consistency is not imposed by a sequence of machine instructions, it is emergent). One of my problems is that it is so obvious to me that programs can do things that do not look rule governed that I can hardly imagine anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps that is the source of the misunderstanding here. Richard Loosemore Okay here's my v.v. rough idea - the core two lines or principles of a much more complex program - for engaging in any activity, solving any problem - with maximum adaptivity 1. Choose any reasonable path - and any reasonable way to move along it - to the goal. [and then move] [reasonable = likely to be as or more profitable than any of the other paths you have time to consider] 2. If you have not yet reached the goal, and if you have not any other superior goals [anything better to do], choose any other reasonable path - and way of moving - that will lead you closer to the goal. This presupposes what the human brain clearly has - the hierarchical ability to recognize literally ANYTHING as a thing, path, way of moving/ move or goal. It can perceive literally anything from these multifunctional perspectives. This presupposes that something like these concepts are fundamental to the brain's operation. This also presupposes what you
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Richard: in my system, decisions about what to do next are the result of hundreds or thousands of atoms (basic units of knowledge, all of which are active processors) coming together in a very context-dependent way and trying to form coherent models of the situation. This cloud of knowledge atoms will cause an outcome to emerge, but they almost never go through a sequence of steps, like a linear computer program, to generate an outcome. As a result I cannot exactly predict what they will do on a particular occasion (they will have a general consistency in their behavior, but that consistency is not imposed by a sequence of machine instructions, it is emergent). Sounds - just a tad - like somewhat recent Darwinian selection ideas of how the brain thinks. Do you think the brain actually thinks in your way? Doesn't have to - but you claim to be based on the brain. (You don't have a self engaged in conscious, to be or not to be,decisionmaking, I take it?) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73983345-d15736
RE: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike, When I write about my system, (which sounds like it is designed somewhat like yours), I am talking about a system that has only been thought about deeply, but never yet built. When you write about my system do you actually have something up and running? If so, hats off to you. And, if so, how much do you have up and running, how much of it can you describe, and what sorts of things can it do and how well does it work? Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:16 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ..] Richard: in my system, decisions about what to do next are the result of hundreds or thousands of atoms (basic units of knowledge, all of which are active processors) coming together in a very context-dependent way and trying to form coherent models of the situation. This cloud of knowledge atoms will cause an outcome to emerge, but they almost never go through a sequence of steps, like a linear computer program, to generate an outcome. As a result I cannot exactly predict what they will do on a particular occasion (they will have a general consistency in their behavior, but that consistency is not imposed by a sequence of machine instructions, it is emergent). Sounds - just a tad - like somewhat recent Darwinian selection ideas of how the brain thinks. Do you think the brain actually thinks in your way? Doesn't have to - but you claim to be based on the brain. (You don't have a self engaged in conscious, to be or not to be,decisionmaking, I take it?) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73985772-4d045e
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Ed Porter wrote: Mike, When I write about my system, (which sounds like it is designed somewhat like yours), I am talking about a system that has only been thought about deeply, but never yet built. When you write about my system do you actually have something up and running? If so, hats off to you. And, if so, how much do you have up and running, how much of it can you describe, and what sorts of things can it do and how well does it work? Ed Porter You presumably meant the question for me, since I was the one who said my system in the quote below. The answer is that I do have a great deal of code implementing various aspects of my system, but questions like how well does it work are premature: I am experimenting with mechanisms, and building all the tools needed to do more systematic experiments on those mechanisms, not attempting to build the entire system yet. For the most part, though, I use the phrase my system to mean the architecture, which is more detailed than the particular code I have written. Richard Loosemore -Original Message- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:16 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ..] Richard: in my system, decisions about what to do next are the result of hundreds or thousands of atoms (basic units of knowledge, all of which are active processors) coming together in a very context-dependent way and trying to form coherent models of the situation. This cloud of knowledge atoms will cause an outcome to emerge, but they almost never go through a sequence of steps, like a linear computer program, to generate an outcome. As a result I cannot exactly predict what they will do on a particular occasion (they will have a general consistency in their behavior, but that consistency is not imposed by a sequence of machine instructions, it is emergent). Sounds - just a tad - like somewhat recent Darwinian selection ideas of how the brain thinks. Do you think the brain actually thinks in your way? Doesn't have to - but you claim to be based on the brain. (You don't have a self engaged in conscious, to be or not to be,decisionmaking, I take it?) - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=74001696-312be4
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike Tintner wrote: Well, I'm not sure if not doing logic necessarily means a system is irrational, i.e if rationality equates to logic. Any system consistently followed can classify as rational. If for example, a program consistently does Freudian free association and produces nothing but a chain of associations with some connection: bird - - feathers - four..tops or on the contrary, a 'nonsense' chain where there is NO connection.. logic.. sex... ralph .. essence... pi... Loosemore... then it is rational - it consistently follows a system with a set of rules. And the rules could, for argument's sake, specify that every step is illogical - as in breaking established rules of logic - or that steps are alternately logical and illogical. That too would be rational. Neural nets from the little I know are also rational inasmuch as they follow rules. Ditto Hofstadter Johnson-Laird from again the little I know also seem rational - Johnson-Laird's jazz improvisation program from my cursory reading seemed rational and not truly creative. Sorry to be brief, but: This raises all sorts of deep issues about what exactly you would mean by rational. If a bunch of things (computational processes) come together and each contribute something to a decision that results in an output, and the exact output choice depends on so many factors coming together that it would not necessarily be the same output if roughly the same situation occurred another time, and if none of these things looked like a rule of any kind, then would you still call it rational? If the answer is yes then whatever would count as not rational? Richard Loosemore I do not know enough to pass judgment on your system, but you do strike me as a rational kind of guy (although probably philosophically much closer to me than most here as you seem to indicate). Your attitude to emotions seems to me rational, and your belief that you can produce an AGI that will almost definitely be cooperative , also bespeaks rationality. In the final analysis, irrationality = creativity (although I'm using the word with a small c, rather than the social kind, where someone produces a new idea that no one in society has had or published before). If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. But yes, please do send me your paper. P.S. I hope you won't - I actually don't think - that you will get all pedantic on me like so many AI-ers say ah but we already have programs that can modify their rules. Yes, but they do that according to metarules - they are still basically rulebound. A crazy/ creative program is rulebreaking (and rulecreating) - can break ALL the rules, incl. metarules. Rulebound/rulebreaking is one of the most crucial differences between narrow AI/AGI. Richard: In the same way computer programs are completely neutral and can be used to build systems that are either rational or irrational. My system is not rational in that sense at all. Richard, Out of interest, rather than pursuing the original argument: 1) Who are these programmers/ systembuilders who try to create programs (and what are the programs/ systems) that are either irrational or non-rational (and described as such)? I'm a little partied out right now, so all I have time for is to suggest: Hofstadter's group builds all kinds of programs that do things without logic. Phil Johnson-Laird (and students) used to try to model reasoning ability using systems that did not do logic. All kinds of language processing people use various kinds of neural nets: see my earlier research papers with Gordon Brown et al, as well as folks like Mark Seidenberg, Kim Plunkett etc. Marslen-Wilson and Tyler used something called a Cohort Model to describe some aspects of language. I am just dragging up the name of anyone who has ever done any kind of computer modelling of some aspect of cognition: all of these people do not use systems that do any kind of logical processing. I could go on indefinitely. There are probably hundreds of them. They do not try to build complete systems, of course, just local models. When I have proposed (in different threads) that the mind is not rationally, algorithmically programmed I have been met with uniform and often fierce resistance both on this and another AI forum. Hey, join the club! You have read my little brouhaha with
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike, I think you are going to have to be specific about what you mean by irrational because you mostly just say that all the processes that could possibly exist in computers are rational, and I am wondering what else is there that irrational could possibly mean. I have named many processes that seem to me to fit the irrational definition, but without being too clear about it you have declared them all to be just rational, so now I have no idea what you can be meaning by the word. Richard Loosemore Mike Tintner wrote: Richard:This raises all sorts of deep issues about what exactly you would mean by rational. If a bunch of things (computational processes) come together and each contribute something to a decision that results in an output, and the exact output choice depends on so many factors coming together that it would not necessarily be the same output if roughly the same situation occurred another time, and if none of these things looked like a rule of any kind, then would you still call it rational?If the answer is yes then whatever would count as not rational? I'm not sure what you mean - but this seems consistent with other impressions I've been getting of your thinking. Let me try and cut through this: if science were to change from its prevailing conception of the human mind as a rational, computational machine to what I am suggesting - i.e. a creative, compositional, irrational machine - we would be talking of a major revolution that would impact right through the sciences - and radically extend the scope of scientific investigation into human thought. It would be the end of the deterministic conception of humans and animals and ultimately be a revolution of Darwinian proportions. Hofstadter co are absolutely not revolutionaries. Johnson-Laird conceives of the human mind as an automaton. None of them are fundamentally changing the prevailing conceptions of cognitive science. No one has reacted to them with shock or horror or delight. I suspect that what you are talking about is loosely akin to the ideas of some that quantum mechanics has changed scientific determinism. It hasn't - the fact that we can't measure certain quantum phenomena with precision does not mean that they are not fundamentally deterministic. And science remains deterministic. Similarly, if you make a computer system very complex, keep changing the factors involved in computations, add random factors whatever, you are not necessarily making it non-rational. You make it v. difficult to understand the computer's rationality, (and possibly extend our conception of rationality), but the system may still be basically rational, just as quantum particles are still in all probability basically deterministic. As a side-issue, I don't believe that human reasoning, conscious and unconscious, is remotely, even infinitesimally as complex as that of the AI systems you guys all seem to be building. The human brain surely never seizes up with the kind of complex, runaway calculations that y'all have been conjuring up in your arguments. That only happens when you have a rational system that obeys basically rigid (even if complex) rules. The human brain is cleverer than that - it doesn't have any definite rules for any activities. In fact, you should be so lucky as to have a nice, convenient set of rules, even complex ones, to guide you when you sit down to write your computer programs. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73610112-93352e
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike Tintner wrote: Richard: Mike, I think you are going to have to be specific about what you mean by irrational because you mostly just say that all the processes that could possibly exist in computers are rational, and I am wondering what else is there that irrational could possibly mean. I have named many processes that seem to me to fit the irrational definition, but without being too clear about it you have declared them all to be just rational, so now I have no idea what you can be meaning by the word. Richard, Er, it helps to read my posts. From my penultimate post to you: If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. A rational system follows a set of rules in solving a problem (which can incl. rules that self-modify according to metarules) ; a creative, irrational system can change/break/create any and all rules (incl. metarules) at any point of solving a problem - the ultimate, by definition, in adaptivity. (Much like you, and indeed all of us, change the rules of engagement much of the time in our discussions here). Listen, no need to reply - because you're obviously not really interested. To me that's ironic, though, because this is absolutely the most central issue there is in AGI. But no matter. No, I am interested, I was just confused, and I did indeed miss the above definition (got a lot I have to do right now, so am going very fast through my postings) -- sorry about that. The fact is that the computational models I mentioned (those by Hofstadter etc) are all just attempts to understand part of the problem of how a cognitive system works, and all of them are consistent with the design of a system that is irrational accroding to your above definition. They may look rational, but that is just an illusion: every one of them is so small that it is completely neutral with respect to the rationality of a complete system. They could be used by someone who wanted to build a rational system or an irrational system, it does not matter. For my own system (and for Hofstadter too), the natural extension of the system to a full AGI design would involve a system [that] can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. This is very VERY much part of the design. I prefer not to use the term irrational to describe it (because that has other connotations), but using your definition, it would be irrational. There is not any problem with doing all of this. Does this clarify the question? I think really I would reflect the question back at you and ask why you would think that this is a difficult thing to do? It is not difficult to design a system this way: some people like the trad-AI folks don't do it (yet), and appear not to be trying, but there is nothing in principle that makes it difficult to build a system of this sort. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73685934-1acb8b
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Richard: Mike, I think you are going to have to be specific about what you mean by irrational because you mostly just say that all the processes that could possibly exist in computers are rational, and I am wondering what else is there that irrational could possibly mean. I have named many processes that seem to me to fit the irrational definition, but without being too clear about it you have declared them all to be just rational, so now I have no idea what you can be meaning by the word. Richard, Er, it helps to read my posts. From my penultimate post to you: If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. A rational system follows a set of rules in solving a problem (which can incl. rules that self-modify according to metarules) ; a creative, irrational system can change/break/create any and all rules (incl. metarules) at any point of solving a problem - the ultimate, by definition, in adaptivity. (Much like you, and indeed all of us, change the rules of engagement much of the time in our discussions here). Listen, no need to reply - because you're obviously not really interested. To me that's ironic, though, because this is absolutely the most central issue there is in AGI. But no matter. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73661748-adcbd5
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike Tintner wrote: Richard:For my own system (and for Hofstadter too), the natural extension of the system to a full AGI design would involve a system [that] can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. This is very VERY much part of the design. There is not any problem with doing all of this. Does this clarify the question? I think really I would reflect the question back at you and ask why you would think that this is a difficult thing to do? Richard, Fine. Sounds interesting. But you don't actually clarify or explain anything. Why don't you explain how you or anyone else can fundamentally change your approach/rules at any point of solving a problem? Why don't you, just in plain English, - in philosophical as opposed to programming form - set out the key rules or principles that allow you or anyone else to do this? I have never seen such key rules or principles anywhere, nor indeed even adumbrated anywhere. (Fancy word, but it just came to mind). And since they are surely a central problem for AGI - and no one has solved AGI - how on earth could I not think this a difficult matter? I have some v. rough ideas about this, which I can gladly set out. But I'd like to hear yours - you should be able to do it briefly. But please, no handwaving. I will try to think about your question when I can but meanwhile think about this: if we go back to the analogy of painting and whether or not it can be used to depict things that are abstract or non-representational, how would you respond to someone who wanted exact details of how come painting could allow that to be possible.? If someone asked that, I couldn't think of anything to say except ... why *wouldn't* it be possible? It would strike me as just not a question that made any sense, to ask for the exact reasons why it is possible to paint things that are not representational. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it not possible to do that. It is possible: it is not easy to do it right, but that's not the point. Computers can be used to program systems of any sort (including deeply irrational things like Microsoft Office), so why would anyone think that AGI systems must exhibit only a certain sort of design? This isn't handwaving, it is just genuine bafflement. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73903282-a471b6
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Richard: In the same way computer programs are completely neutral and can be used to build systems that are either rational or irrational. My system is not rational in that sense at all. Richard, Out of interest, rather than pursuing the original argument: 1) Who are these programmers/ systembuilders who try to create programs (and what are the programs/ systems) that are either irrational or non-rational (and described as such)? When I have proposed (in different threads) that the mind is not rationally, algorithmically programmed I have been met with uniform and often fierce resistance both on this and another AI forum. My argument re the philosophy of mind of cog sci other sciences is of course not based on such reactions, but they do confirm my argument. And the position you at first appear to be adopting is unique both in my experience and my reading. 2) How is your system not rational? Does it not use algorithms? And could you give a specific example or two of the kind of problem that it deals with - non-rationally? (BTW I don't think I've seen any problem examples for your system anywhere, period - for all I know, it could be designed to read children' stories, bomb Iraq, do syllogisms, work out your domestic budget, or work out the meaning of life - or play and develop in virtual worlds). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73382084-a9590d
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Mike Tintner wrote: Richard: In the same way computer programs are completely neutral and can be used to build systems that are either rational or irrational. My system is not rational in that sense at all. Richard, Out of interest, rather than pursuing the original argument: 1) Who are these programmers/ systembuilders who try to create programs (and what are the programs/ systems) that are either irrational or non-rational (and described as such)? I'm a little partied out right now, so all I have time for is to suggest: Hofstadter's group builds all kinds of programs that do things without logic. Phil Johnson-Laird (and students) used to try to model reasoning ability using systems that did not do logic. All kinds of language processing people use various kinds of neural nets: see my earlier research papers with Gordon Brown et al, as well as folks like Mark Seidenberg, Kim Plunkett etc. Marslen-Wilson and Tyler used something called a Cohort Model to describe some aspects of language. I am just dragging up the name of anyone who has ever done any kind of computer modelling of some aspect of cognition: all of these people do not use systems that do any kind of logical processing. I could go on indefinitely. There are probably hundreds of them. They do not try to build complete systems, of course, just local models. When I have proposed (in different threads) that the mind is not rationally, algorithmically programmed I have been met with uniform and often fierce resistance both on this and another AI forum. Hey, join the club! You have read my little brouhaha with Yudkowsky last year I presume? A lot of AI people have their heads up their asses, so yes, they believe that rationality is God. It does depend how you put it though: sometimes you use rationality to not mean what they mean, so that might explain the ferocity. My argument re the philosophy of mind of cog sci other sciences is of course not based on such reactions, but they do confirm my argument. And the position you at first appear to be adopting is unique both in my experience and my reading. 2) How is your system not rational? Does it not use algorithms? It uses dynamic relaxation in a generalized neural net. Too much to explain in a hurry. And could you give a specific example or two of the kind of problem that it deals with - non-rationally? (BTW I don't think I've seen any problem examples for your system anywhere, period - for all I know, it could be designed to read children' stories, bomb Iraq, do syllogisms, work out your domestic budget, or work out the meaning of life - or play and develop in virtual worlds). I am playing this close, for the time being, but I have released a small amount of it in a forthcoming neuroscience paper. I'll send it to you tomorrow if you like, but it does not go into a lot of detail. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=73425500-35e13a
Re: Human Irrationality [WAS Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ...]
Well, I'm not sure if not doing logic necessarily means a system is irrational, i.e if rationality equates to logic. Any system consistently followed can classify as rational. If for example, a program consistently does Freudian free association and produces nothing but a chain of associations with some connection: bird - - feathers - four..tops or on the contrary, a 'nonsense' chain where there is NO connection.. logic.. sex... ralph .. essence... pi... Loosemore... then it is rational - it consistently follows a system with a set of rules. And the rules could, for argument's sake, specify that every step is illogical - as in breaking established rules of logic - or that steps are alternately logical and illogical. That too would be rational. Neural nets from the little I know are also rational inasmuch as they follow rules. Ditto Hofstadter Johnson-Laird from again the little I know also seem rational - Johnson-Laird's jazz improvisation program from my cursory reading seemed rational and not truly creative. I do not know enough to pass judgment on your system, but you do strike me as a rational kind of guy (although probably philosophically much closer to me than most here as you seem to indicate). Your attitude to emotions seems to me rational, and your belief that you can produce an AGI that will almost definitely be cooperative , also bespeaks rationality. In the final analysis, irrationality = creativity (although I'm using the word with a small c, rather than the social kind, where someone produces a new idea that no one in society has had or published before). If a system can change its approach and rules of reasoning at literally any step of problem-solving, then it is truly crazy/ irrational (think of a crazy path). And it will be capable of producing all the human irrationalities that I listed previously - like not even defining or answering the problem. It will by the same token have the capacity to be truly creative, because it will ipso facto be capable of lateral thinking at any step of problem-solving. Is your system capable of that? Or anything close? Somehow I doubt it, or you'd already be claiming the solution to both AGI and computational creativity. But yes, please do send me your paper. P.S. I hope you won't - I actually don't think - that you will get all pedantic on me like so many AI-ers say ah but we already have programs that can modify their rules. Yes, but they do that according to metarules - they are still basically rulebound. A crazy/ creative program is rulebreaking (and rulecreating) - can break ALL the rules, incl. metarules. Rulebound/rulebreaking is one of the most crucial differences between narrow AI/AGI. Richard: In the same way computer programs are completely neutral and can be used to build systems that are either rational or irrational. My system is not rational in that sense at all. Richard, Out of interest, rather than pursuing the original argument: 1) Who are these programmers/ systembuilders who try to create programs (and what are the programs/ systems) that are either irrational or non-rational (and described as such)? I'm a little partied out right now, so all I have time for is to suggest: Hofstadter's group builds all kinds of programs that do things without logic. Phil Johnson-Laird (and students) used to try to model reasoning ability using systems that did not do logic. All kinds of language processing people use various kinds of neural nets: see my earlier research papers with Gordon Brown et al, as well as folks like Mark Seidenberg, Kim Plunkett etc. Marslen-Wilson and Tyler used something called a Cohort Model to describe some aspects of language. I am just dragging up the name of anyone who has ever done any kind of computer modelling of some aspect of cognition: all of these people do not use systems that do any kind of logical processing. I could go on indefinitely. There are probably hundreds of them. They do not try to build complete systems, of course, just local models. When I have proposed (in different threads) that the mind is not rationally, algorithmically programmed I have been met with uniform and often fierce resistance both on this and another AI forum. Hey, join the club! You have read my little brouhaha with Yudkowsky last year I presume? A lot of AI people have their heads up their asses, so yes, they believe that rationality is God. It does depend how you put it though: sometimes you use rationality to not mean what they mean, so that might explain the ferocity. My argument re the philosophy of mind of cog sci other sciences is of course not based on such reactions, but they do confirm my argument. And the position you at first appear to be adopting is unique both in my experience and my reading. 2) How is your system not rational? Does it not use algorithms? It uses dynamic relaxation in a generalized neural
