Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 27, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:


Ben:   MT: Venter has changed everything

today - including the paradigms that govern both science and AI..
Ben:  Lets not overblow things -- please note that Venter's team has  
not yet

synthesized an artificial organism.


Here's why I think Venter's so important - to quote a post of mine  
to an evo-psych group [I also recommend here BTW Dennis Noble's "The  
Music of Life" - re "genetic keyboard"]:


"Over and above its immediate, technological significance for  
Artificial Life, I see this as the end of an era in science. I think  
the defining scientific paradigm of the last 50 years - the genetic  
code, or program, and with it the idea that we are determined by our  
genes - is now dead (or in its death throes).  [I would define  
genetic determinism BTW as ALLOWING for, and in no way excluding,  
environmental influences].


I don't see what is meant by this statement.  We are in some ways  
determined by our genes.  We can influence and change those genes.   
Does that many we are any less determined by genes than we ever  
were?   That the genes can be more fluid doesn't change the fact of  
our biology (this side of major MNT anyway) being determined by genes.





I think the replacement for that paradigm is now clear, even if it  
hasn't been exactly defined, and that is - the genetic keyboard.  
That might not be immediately obvious. But if you think about it,  
what has happened - Craig Venter & co creating a new genome - is an  
example of the genetic keyboard playing on itself, i.e. one genome  
[Craig Venter] has played with another genome and will eventually  
and inevitably play with itself. Clearly it is in the nature of the  
genome to recreate itself - and not just to execute a program. (And  
indeed, had the computational paradigm been properly thought  
through, it would have been noted that it is in the nature of  
programs - as actually produced and existing on computers - that  
they are NOT stable entities but  are normally,  and more or less  
demand to be,  endlessly reprogrammed - by the use, as it happens,  
of a keyboard).


This is not "clearly" clear at all.  It is a bit of poetic  
extrapolation.  It certainly is not clear that genetic manipulation  
will take us to super-human intelligence faster than AGI will.





Craig Venter  has disavowed genetic determinism: "There are two  
fallacies to be avoided," Dr Venter's team write in the journal  
Science.
"Determinism, the idea that all characteristics of a person are  
'hard-wired' by the genome; and reductionism, that now the human  
sequence is completely known, it is just a matter of time before our  
understanding of gene functions and interactions will provide a  
complete causal description of human variability."


More significantly for EP, Venter has also disavowed natural  
selection:


"The key problem is that far from being the simple computer code we  
once thought it was, DNA is fabulously complex. When I last  
interviewed Venter a decade ago, he said our DNA was too complex to  
be designed by man and probably even too complex for natural  
selection. The problem has worsened: "With the publication now of  
the full genome, it's clearly more complicated than ever.


Huh?  So DNA proves god or some super-intelligence behind it all?
This is seriously adrift.





"All our data from the environment and other places is telling us  
there are different components to our personalities.


So?

Certainly step by step everything's just a point mutation and things  
change. But I don't think that can explain everything. People have  
this simplistic view of Darwinian evolution as random point  
mutations in the genetic code followed by natural selection. No, I  
don't think that would have got us out of our genome."




On what basis?  So he doesn't think so.  So what?  That is not a  
reasoned argument.   People that actually understand evolution do not  
speak in terms of "random point mutations".We are not in any real  
sense yet "out of our genome".



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2752196.ece

P.S. I would acknowledge that there is still philosophical/ 
scientific work to be done  -  the case for the changeover of  
paradigms has been not fully made. But it is now inevitable.


P.P.S. The full new paradigm is something like -  "the self-driving/  
self-conducting machine" -  it is actually the self that is the rest  
of the body and brain, that interactively plays upon, and is played  
by, the genome, (rather than the genome literally playing upon  
itself). And just as science generally has left the self out of its  
paradigms, so cog sci has left the indispensible human programmer/ 
operator out of its computational paradigms.


Huh?  It has done no such thing.




To bring in the Gudrun discussion, you could say that science is  
about to tell us that what you - your self - do with your body (as  
distinct from how it 

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:



Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can  
interact with the

real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
a purely virtual environment?


The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of  
getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as  
Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's  
totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin  
ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name  
for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors.


So what is your point leading to?  What do you want to do about it or  
have others do about it?   Do you have anything new to say on this  
subject.  Your argument seems to be getting quite repetitive and imho  
overplayed.


- samantha

-
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=4007604&id_secret=92965253-03da8e

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[BillK]

On Feb 1, 2008 10:09 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that there is any reason to believe there is no
> real world out there. What I am saying is that *if* the world you
> perceive were due to computer-generated data at an arbitrarily high
> level of resolution fed into your brain, it would respond in the same
> way as if it were in an intact body interacting with a real
> environment and you would have no way of knowing what was going on.
> Thus your claim that it is *impossible* for an intelligence to
> function in a virtual environment is false. (The weaker claim that it
> might be easier for an intelligence to develop and function in a real
> environment using a robot body, for example because this is
> computationally cheaper than building a virtual environment of
> comparable richness, may yet have merit.)
>
> The other point I was trying to make is that even if the world is
> real, the picture of the world your brain creates from sensory data is
> an abstraction that exists only in the computational space that is
> your mind. The map is not the territory.
>


To add further evidence, I've just read a new article about haptics:


Haptics: New Software Allows User To Reach Out And Touch, Virtually

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2008) — European researchers have pioneered a
breakthrough interface that allows people to touch, stretch and pull
virtual fabrics that feel like the real thing.
The system combines a specially designed glove, a sophisticated
computer model and visual representation to reproduce the sensation of
cloth with an impressive degree of realism.
---

Now, drop the glove and screen and just feed the inputs direct to an
AI and you provide the AI with a sense of touching the virtual
universe.

Who needs a real body?

BillK

-
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=4007604&id_secret=92620471-46284f

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 01/02/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The philosophical conceit that we do not really know that there is a table
> (or a penis) in front of us, is just that - a fanciful conceit. It shows
> what happens when you rely on words and symbols as your sole medium of
> intellectual thought - as philosophers mainly do.
>
> In reality, you have no problem knowing and being sure of those objects and
> the world around you  - except in exceptional circumstances. Why? Two
> reasons.
>
> First, all sensations/perceptions are continually being unconsciously tested
> for their reality -  a process which I would have thought every AI/robotics
> person would take for granted. Hence your brain occasionally thinks: "was
> that really so-and-so I saw?"...or: "where exactly in my foot *is* that
> pain?" Your unconscious brain has had problems checking some perception.
>
> Secondly, your brain works by *common sense* perception and testing. We are
> continually testing our perceptions with all our senses and our whole body.
> You don't just look at things, you reach out and touch them, smell them,
> taste them, and confirm over and over that your perceptions are valid. (Also
> it's worth pointing out that since you are continually moving in relation to
> objects, your many different-angle "shots" of them are continually tested
> against each other for consistency). Like a good journalist, you check more
> than one source. Your perceptions are continually tested in a deeply
> embodied way - and in general v. much "in touch" with reality.

I'm not suggesting that there is any reason to believe there is no
real world out there. What I am saying is that *if* the world you
perceive were due to computer-generated data at an arbitrarily high
level of resolution fed into your brain, it would respond in the same
way as if it were in an intact body interacting with a real
environment and you would have no way of knowing what was going on.
Thus your claim that it is *impossible* for an intelligence to
function in a virtual environment is false. (The weaker claim that it
might be easier for an intelligence to develop and function in a real
environment using a robot body, for example because this is
computationally cheaper than building a virtual environment of
comparable richness, may yet have merit.)

The other point I was trying to make is that even if the world is
real, the picture of the world your brain creates from sensory data is
an abstraction that exists only in the computational space that is
your mind. The map is not the territory.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=92524190-74820c

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

- Stathis: > The fact is, you are already living in a virtual 
environment. Your

brain creates a picture of the world based on sensory data. You can't
*really* know what a table is, or even that there is a table there in
front of you at all. All you can know is that you have particular
table-like experiences, which seem to be consistently generated by
what you come to think of as the external object "table". There is no
way to be certain that the picture in your head - including the
picture you have of your own body - is generated by a real external
environment rather than by a computer sending appropriately high
resolution signals to fool your brain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat



Stathis,

So when you see and touch your penis, you have no idea whether it's really 
there? And you cannot be certain that it's your penis and not someone 
else's? Despite having touched it...how many times?


The philosophical conceit that we do not really know that there is a table 
(or a penis) in front of us, is just that - a fanciful conceit. It shows 
what happens when you rely on words and symbols as your sole medium of 
intellectual thought - as philosophers mainly do.


In reality, you have no problem knowing and being sure of those objects and 
the world around you  - except in exceptional circumstances. Why? Two 
reasons.


First, all sensations/perceptions are continually being unconsciously tested 
for their reality -  a process which I would have thought every AI/robotics 
person would take for granted. Hence your brain occasionally thinks: "was 
that really so-and-so I saw?"...or: "where exactly in my foot *is* that 
pain?" Your unconscious brain has had problems checking some perception.


Secondly, your brain works by *common sense* perception and testing. We are 
continually testing our perceptions with all our senses and our whole body. 
You don't just look at things, you reach out and touch them, smell them, 
taste them, and confirm over and over that your perceptions are valid. (Also 
it's worth pointing out that since you are continually moving in relation to 
objects, your many different-angle "shots" of them are continually tested 
against each other for consistency). Like a good journalist, you check more 
than one source. Your perceptions are continually tested in a deeply 
embodied way - and in general v. much "in touch" with reality.


But when you and philosophers come to think intellectually about perception, 
because.you then rely solely on words and symbols - and cease to test your 
ideas about, as distinct from actual, perceptions in an embodied way - you 
come up with literally non-sense. (Hence it is that philosophers are the 
common butt of "how do you know you're really here?" jokes at parties). And 
disembodied AGI seems to me a loosely similar disembodied conceit..






-
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=4007604&id_secret=92465648-36aeb0

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 31/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the question should reverse - I and every (most?) creature can
> distinguish between a real and a virtual environment. How on earth can a
> virtual creature make the same distinction? How can it have a body, or a
> continuous sense of a body? How can it have a continous map of the world,
> with a continuous physical sense of up/down, forward/back,
> heaviness/lightness?  And a fairly continuous sense of time passing? How can
> it have a self? How can it have continuous (conflicting) emotions coursing
> through its body? How can it also have a continuous sense of its energy and
> muscles - of zest/apathy, strength/weakness, awakeness/tiredness? How can it
> have a sense of its posture, and muscles tight or loose?

The fact is, you are already living in a virtual environment. Your
brain creates a picture of the world based on sensory data. You can't
*really* know what a table is, or even that there is a table there in
front of you at all. All you can know is that you have particular
table-like experiences, which seem to be consistently generated by
what you come to think of as the external object "table". There is no
way to be certain that the picture in your head - including the
picture you have of your own body - is generated by a real external
environment rather than by a computer sending appropriately high
resolution signals to fool your brain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=92100746-21f656

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Stathis,

I think the question should reverse - I and every (most?) creature can 
distinguish between a real and a virtual environment. How on earth can a 
virtual creature make the same distinction? How can it have a body, or a 
continuous sense of a body? How can it have a continous map of the world, 
with a continuous physical sense of up/down, forward/back, 
heaviness/lightness?  And a fairly continuous sense of time passing? How can 
it have a self? How can it have continuous (conflicting) emotions coursing 
through its body? How can it also have a continuous sense of its energy and 
muscles - of zest/apathy, strength/weakness, awakeness/tiredness? How can it 
have a sense of its posture, and muscles tight or loose?


How can it continually use these complex body maps and models to map and 
model other creatures - other humans, animals - other shapes and things - 
and get a sense of their solidity/ speed/ etc? How can it have continuous 
empathy for creatures around it and sense their moods and body states?


How BTW do computer visual systems visually interpret any ongoing physical 
scene? My understanding is they still can't identify basic physical shapes 
with any reasonable success rate. So how can they understand that a certain 
object is falling to the floor, & not being pulled - or floating upwards, & 
not being lifted? And so on and on for every physical interaction? My 
(pretty ignorant) understanding is they can do none of these - and without a 
body, I would think it unlikely that they will.


As I write all this, a central distinction re embodiment becomes clear - 
yes, computers can have a "society of mind". What they standalone can't have 
is a "society of body". And of course that society of body is even greater 
and inseparable from the society of mind - a simply vast (ahem 
"mind-blowing") organization.


BTW I'd be grateful if you & others would constructively & not just 
defensively engage with these points. I'm obviously just starting to reach 
for a systematic statement of the essential need for embodiment.


One part of that essential need, as I said,  is that your body and your 
sense of your self in that body provides your continuous set of maps and 
models of the world around - which is what mirror neurons help establish. 
So trying to exclude your body from your (or your AGI's) intelligence of the 
world is like trying to do *science without geometry* - quite impossible. 
And trying to exclude your body is also like trying to do *science without 
art* -  to see Stathis or let's say Brad Pitt/ Jennifer Aniston purely as a 
set of formulae, mathematical formulae and verbal descriptions - and not the 
living breathing complexly emotional and pyschological body/creature that is 
progressively evident in a photo, a movie, a theatrical stage, the living 
flesh in front of you.


The *grand illusion* here - shared by all of you - and this is crucial - is 
that of the power of words and symbols. You are all religious believers 
here - you basically are inheriters of :


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God..."


That's what's going on here. The grand illusion is that because words and 
other symbols can POINT at everything, and NAME everything, they can 
therefore conjure up everything - they ARE the things they point to.They ARE 
God. And young children can literally have these illusions, whereas they are 
merely implicit in AGI-ers' thinking.


Actually no - the word or name is not the object it refers to, the map is 
not the territory. You have to have the real object to really know it. A 
real flower, the real Stathis, the real Brad Pitt etc.  The real world 
around you.  And your own real body in it.


And you need a real body not only to *know* that other body - but to *take 
it to pieces* in all physical senses - to touch and feel how heavy, how 
rough, how solid - and to do physical, scientific experiments on.


So a disembodied intelligence is like a *science that is theory without 
experiment* - again an impossibility. That's how science *started* thanks to 
Bacon  - by insisting on the need for experiment. If you want to know 
anything, you have to in some sense do scientific or quasi-scientific 
physical experiments on it - your body acting on its body. That's how you 
became proficient in AI - by doing physical embodied "experiments" with 
computers. Had you tried to do it all from books, you would never have got 
anywhere. That's how infants begin by fiddling and sucking etc with things 
and only later naming and numbering them.


Sorry, disembodied AGI is simply an enormous illusion like any of the 
hundreds of illusions in psychological experiments. Initially compelling but 
look closely and its unreality becomes clear. Get real. Get physical.




Stathis:   MT:
The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of 
getting

to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf,
dumb and bl

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 27, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:

Samantha: MT: You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work  
without the
puppeteer.   Samantha:What's that, elan vitale, a "soul", a  
"consciousness" that is

independent of the puppet?

It's significant that you make quite the wrong assumption. You too  
are fooled. The puppeteer is the human operator/programmer. V.  
simple and obvious. Computers do not actually EXIST. All that exists  
here are lumps of metal - until human beings come along - and give  
them life and meaning. Without humans they lie there, dead.




Not simple and obvious which is why we are having this conversation.   
You as conscious self certainly do not operate most of the processes  
that allow you as instantiated biological being to exist.  You as  
conscious self do not even operate those processes that you perceive  
as a "self".   So who is fooled?   It is a bit deeper question, no?   
So from whence did human beings come?   Was it not from this dead  
matter?


All your thinking, I suggest,  is predicated on an obvious falsehood  
- that computers exist in their own right and are not just tools/ 
extensions of human beings.  And it is still a very large set of  
unsolved problems as to what will be required to make a robot or  
computer exist in its own right.


I am not sure what you mean by "in their own right"?  Computers are  
specialized tools designed by us.  So?  Do you "exist in your own  
right"?   Do you mean by that autonomous or semi-autonomous decision  
making in an experiential domain?  If not, what do you mean?





If you are serious either as scientist or technologist, you have to  
start from the fact of those unsolved problems, and not just  
wishfully assume that they have all been magically answered. You can  
be sure that the answers, whatever they are, will transform your  
current thinking.




Which unsolved problems are you speaking about?  Can you be a bit  
clearer?


Re why only a moving body can think, it is still a large  
philosophical and scientific problem, and I'm just in the middle of  
working it out ! (But I'm increasingly confident it is soluble and  
soon).


The idea that only a moving body can think is just a hypothesis and  
one that does not seem likely except with a very broad meaning given  
to "moving".


The basic biological evidence for that assertion though is obvious  
-  the only self-sufficient "in-their-own-right" entities that can  
actually think are indeed moving organisms/ animals.


You need to define "in their own right" and in what critical sense we  
are self-sufficient.   There is too much slop here to gain much  
purchase in the discussion.



And the classic fact is that when a sea squirt stops moving, it  
immediately devours its own brain.




Obviously irrelevant.

The other basic fact here is again obvious if you look at the whole  
and not just a part. Above it wasa  case of don't just look at the  
computer look at everything that happens with and around it, like  
the human operator. Here it's a sub-case of that - don't just look  
at the thoughts/ideas - the print, say on the screen, or the writing  
on the page - look at how they are produced.  And - hey - they don't  
happen without movement - someone typing/writing them.




Uh, I hope the "thought and ideas" rather preceded the actual  
typing.  :-)   As to how they are actually produced that is fairly  
complex and largely much more unconscious and mechanical than you seem  
to be crediting.



As Daniel Wolpert says:

"Movement is the only way we have of interacting with the world,  
whether foraging for food or attracting a waiter's attention.  
Indeed, all communication, including speech, sign language, gestures  
and writing, is mediated via the motor system. Taking this  
viewpoint, the purpose of the human brain is to use sensory signals  
to determine future actions. The goal of our lab is to understand  
the computational principles underlying human sensorimotor control"




Sounds a bit like behaviorism.


http://learning.eng.cam.ac.uk/wolpert/

(But that still doesn't solve the problem I referred to which is to  
explain why thinking generally is predicated in its very content on  
moving bodies - and not just produced by moving bodies).




Says you.

- samantha

-
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=4007604&id_secret=92042511-204b8a

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

On 29 Jan 2008, at 00:38, Thomas McCabe wrote:



Check out Ramachandran:

"Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever  
made about
the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for  
biology.
They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of  
mental

abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious..."


Mirror neurons *do* seem like an important discovery in cognitive
science, but they're specific to humans (and other animals with
complex nervous systems), not to intelligences in general. The general
principle (look at another system and copy its behavior) can be
applied just as easily to purely electronic systems as physical ones.
Remember COPYCAT
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_%28software%29)?


Sorry I was under the impression that an electronic system is sort of  
physical, too.

Perhaps, the question is what kind of physical system becomes relevant.
Electronic particles ... blabla


Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just  
out. [She

did Jeff Hawkins before].


The author is a professional writer, not a scientist, and has no
published papers that I can find. To quote from the front page of the
book's website (http://www.thebodyhasamindofitsown.com):

"Your body has a mind of its own. You know it's true. You can feel it,
you can sense it, even though it may be hard to articulate. You know
your body is more than just a meat-vehicle for your mind to cruise
around in, but how deeply are mind, brain and body truly interwoven?"

This is clearly 'pop sci' writing, probably with little technical  
content.


Ha, technical content. Now we're touching  an interesting area.
What is this technical content, please. Science does not equal  
technic(al). Non science ditto.
If Blakeslees's text is non-technical as contrary to the definition of  
technical  below, then it could be quite a good reading for a  
scientist, it might be interesting, because this scients might want to  
either disprove something or
look into the content of this book and find something interesting  
without dismissing it as not peer-reviewed or that the person has not  
published enough. By the way, we all have to start from somewhere.   
Silly me, I thought that good scientists do not dismiss everything that  
does not immediately fit into ones research (or is not found on a hit  
list of super publishers)


Thought this definition from OED (Oxford English Dictionary)  is  
helpful:
 3. a. Belonging or relating to an art or arts; appropriate or  
peculiar to, or characteristic of, a particular art, science,  
profession, or occupation; also, of or pertaining to the mechanical  
arts and applied sciences generally, as in technical education, or  
technical college, school, university.




Gudrun







-
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/?&;



 - Tom

-
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/?&; 
fbefc6




-
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=4007604&id_secret=91105823-402db5

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

On 28 Jan 2008, at 22:31, Thomas McCabe wrote:


On Jan 28, 2008 9:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can  
interact with

the

real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
a purely virtual environment?


The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of  
getting
to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a  
deaf,
dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic,  
can't

play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously
impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and  
all
that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as  
very
severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't  
do that

to a child, why do it to a computer?


Whew. That's... let me count... eleven anthropomorphic comparisons in
one paragraph. You cannot use anthropomorphic thinking when dealing
with AIs. An AI is more different from you than you are from a yeast
cell. Both yeast cells and humans, after all, share the same basic
biochemistry and the same design process (natural selection). Humans
and AIs do not.


I do understand anthropomorphic comparisons as something we do best. It  
is so difficult to envisage 'the other"
Like the yeast cell comparison. But have to point out, that we share  
DNA with it.



 It might be able to spout an
encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm  
but it

wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything.


This is precisely what unintelligent computers do. You're describing
the behavior of an unintelligent system, not an AGI (or even a
modern-day AI). AI can already do much better than this. In 1999,
computers were composing music, poetry, art, and literature, all
without any kind of robotic apparatus.


I know about some of these art stuff. I thought that DADA was more  
interesting. Or look into the Situationists.
Nevertheless, it will become interesting when the art-generating  
artificial (G) intelligences start appreciating each others art



As I
indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and  
I and
many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in  
forthcoming,
backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of  
evidence

via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps
mounting.


At this point, you're starting to sound like the creationists. Any day
now, you know, they're going to present hard, peer-reviewed evidence
for intelligent design. Any day now...
I am sure Mike can defend himself. For me, he does not sound like a  
creationist.
I would like to postulate that some AGI creators work with the mind and  
the soul of creationists.
Isn't it rewarding to re-create god's work. Create a new species. (By  
the way, I am an atheist).
I have a quote from Pamela McCorduck : "AI is a godlike enterprise, I  
said in the first edition, and I stand by that."
(McCorduck, Pamela. Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the  
History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence.

Natick, MA: A K Peters, 2004.)

Gudrun





-
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/?&;



 - Tom

-
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/?&; 
-2bf0b9




-
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=4007604&id_secret=90991299-f5a886

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 28, 2008 6:48 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom:"embodied cognitive science" gets 5,310 hits on Google. "cognitive
> science" gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements,
> especially ones which talk about "revolutions" in any field.
>
> Check out the wiki article - look at the figures at the bottom such as
> Lakoff & co & Google them.  Check out Pfeiffer. Note how many recent books
> in philosophy, psychology and cognitive science are focussing on embodiment
> in one way or other. Check out the Berkeley/ California configuration of
> these guys. Check out morphological computation - and the relevant
> conference.

Quite frankly, I don't have the time to go reading through an entire
field of stuff simply to prove a point.

> Check out Ramachandran:
>
> "Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever made about
> the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology.
> They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental
> abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious..."

Mirror neurons *do* seem like an important discovery in cognitive
science, but they're specific to humans (and other animals with
complex nervous systems), not to intelligences in general. The general
principle (look at another system and copy its behavior) can be
applied just as easily to purely electronic systems as physical ones.
Remember COPYCAT
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_%28software%29)?

> Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just out. [She
> did Jeff Hawkins before].

The author is a professional writer, not a scientist, and has no
published papers that I can find. To quote from the front page of the
book's website (http://www.thebodyhasamindofitsown.com):

"Your body has a mind of its own. You know it's true. You can feel it,
you can sense it, even though it may be hard to articulate. You know
your body is more than just a meat-vehicle for your mind to cruise
around in, but how deeply are mind, brain and body truly interwoven?"

This is clearly 'pop sci' writing, probably with little technical content.

> Even s.o. like Ben, if you track his development - he can correct me - is
> using embodied more and more - and promoting "virtually embodied AI's."
>
> Unlike most mainstream cog. sci. , the embodied version, you'll find,
> really is scientific and has a commitment to scientific experiment and
> testing of its ideas.

Please stop posting audacious claims without references. Claiming that
all of cognitive science is "unscientific", while some small subfield
is "scientific", certainly qualifies as audacious.

> It's as I said an untrumpeted revolution but if you think about it, it's
> inevitable.  Just try thinking without sensation, emotion and movement.
> Brains in a vat are fine for philosophers but they just haven't worked for
> any kind of AGI, or any of the faculties that AGI needs. [And stay cutting
> edge).

See http://www.singinst.org/upload/LOGI//foundations.html.

>
>
>
>
> -
> 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/?&;
>

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90874087-bdefc8

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Tom:"embodied cognitive science" gets 5,310 hits on Google. "cognitive
science" gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements,
especially ones which talk about "revolutions" in any field.

Check out the wiki article - look at the figures at the bottom such as 
Lakoff & co & Google them.  Check out Pfeiffer. Note how many recent books 
in philosophy, psychology and cognitive science are focussing on embodiment 
in one way or other. Check out the Berkeley/ California configuration of 
these guys. Check out morphological computation - and the relevant 
conference. Check out Ramachandran:


"Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever made about 
the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology. 
They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental 
abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious..."


Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just out. [She 
did Jeff Hawkins before].


Even s.o. like Ben, if you track his development - he can correct me - is 
using embodied more and more - and promoting "virtually embodied AI's."


Unlike most mainstream cog. sci. , the embodied version, you'll find, 
really is scientific and has a commitment to scientific experiment and 
testing of its ideas.


It's as I said an untrumpeted revolution but if you think about it, it's 
inevitable.  Just try thinking without sensation, emotion and movement. 
Brains in a vat are fine for philosophers but they just haven't worked for 
any kind of AGI, or any of the faculties that AGI needs. [And stay cutting 
edge).






-
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=4007604&id_secret=90868213-6926fc

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 29/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting
> to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf,
> dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't
> play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously
> impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all
> that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very
> severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that
> to a child, why do it to a computer?  It might be able to spout an
> encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it
> wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything.

How can you tell the difference between sensory input from a real
environment and that from a virtual environment?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90867376-c56f6a

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 29/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 4:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the
> > real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
> > arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
> > a purely virtual environment?
>
> I think the answer to the above is obvious, but the more interesting
> question is whether it even makes sense to speak of a "mind"
> independent of some environment of interaction, whether physical or
> virtual.

Could that just mean in the limiting case that one part of a physical
object is a mind with respect to another part?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90839892-81029c

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 28, 2008 7:16 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gudrun: I think this is not about
> intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via
> evolution) with senses and body.
>
> Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very
> terms "mind" and "body" in this context were splitting up something that
> can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on
> that? However casually...
>
> The background for me is this:  there is a great, untrumpeted revolution
> going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science.

"embodied cognitive science" gets 5,310 hits on Google. "cognitive
science" gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements,
especially ones which talk about "revolutions" in any field.

> See Wiki. That is all
> founded on the idea of the "embodied mind".

"embodied cognitive science" gets 520 hits on Google Scholar, as
compared to 296,000 for "cognitive science". Many individual
researchers have published more papers than this (Euler and Erdos come
to mind).

> Cognitive science is based on
> the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated
> on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers.
> Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2

Please stop posting audacious claims without any evidence. Cog sci is
a huge field, with thousands of full-time researchers worldwide.

> and is based on the idea that thought is
> a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both

Please stop posting audacious claims without any evidence.

> - and is a
> science founded on robotics.

Name one case when attaching a robotic apparatus (of any sort) to a
computer gave it additional intellectual capacity.

> But the whole terminology of this new science - "embodied mind" - is still
> lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm
> interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough.
>
>
> -
> 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/?&;
>

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90838229-e3f9cd

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 28, 2008 9:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with
> the
> > real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
> > arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
> > a purely virtual environment?
>
> The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting
> to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf,
> dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't
> play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously
> impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all
> that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very
> severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that
> to a child, why do it to a computer?

Whew. That's... let me count... eleven anthropomorphic comparisons in
one paragraph. You cannot use anthropomorphic thinking when dealing
with AIs. An AI is more different from you than you are from a yeast
cell. Both yeast cells and humans, after all, share the same basic
biochemistry and the same design process (natural selection). Humans
and AIs do not.

>  It might be able to spout an
> encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it
> wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything.

This is precisely what unintelligent computers do. You're describing
the behavior of an unintelligent system, not an AGI (or even a
modern-day AI). AI can already do much better than this. In 1999,
computers were composing music, poetry, art, and literature, all
without any kind of robotic apparatus.

> As I
> indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and
> many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming,
> backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence
> via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps
> mounting.

At this point, you're starting to sound like the creationists. Any day
now, you know, they're going to present hard, peer-reviewed evidence
for intelligent design. Any day now...

>
> -
> 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/?&;
>

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90811106-19bcc6

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[x]

On Jan 28, 2008 10:02 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Vow, this is well worded, structured in a really nice set of feedback loops.

Some like my writing very much; others find it off-putting. I tend to
err toward excessive abstraction, expecting that others will ask for
supporting detail and/or clarification as desired.  I think I'm
correct in this expectation, but significantly off in my estimation of
the extent of the desire.  ;-)

> What is a non physical embodiment. I would like to know more about this.

Simply put, "non-physical embodiment" refers to an instance of "mind"
functioning within an abstract computational environment as opposed to
the physical environment we commonly assume.  It's worthwhile to note,
however, that from a necessarily subjective viewpoint, one cannot
reliably discern the "degree of abstraction" of one's environment from
"actual reality."  [Thus my scare-quoting of the term "reality" as it
can be referred to but never defined.]  Note also that a
"computational environment" does not necessarily entail a simulation,
although these concepts are commonly conflated in this forum.


> If we have a form of embodied AGI (with all the definitions and descriptions
> above, even a non physical one not being grounded in an ultimate reality), and
> there is space for movement/motion (see other posts and definitions for
> movement), has anybody thought about DESIRE. How could desire come into this.

It seems to me that in coherent, systems-theoretic terms, "desire"
refers to perceived distance between an agent's internal
"values-complex" and the perceived state of its environment.  So
intentional action serves simply to reduce this perceived distance to
zero (via execution of more or less "intelligent" internally encoded
instrumental principles.)  To the extent that the relevant aspects of
this interaction can be said to be fully specified, then the desired
future state can be called a "goal."

> What kind of mind is desirable?

Non-sequitur.

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90654113-309ea5

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


On Jan 28, 2008 7:56 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


X:Of course this is a variation on "the grounding problem" in AI.  But
do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to
effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think
any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a
limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to
the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless
of even proximate grounding in any functional sense?

Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving
examples of the agents/systems  and what you mean by absolute/ proximate
grounding?


I see that you're talking about interaction between systems considered
to be "minds", and highlighting the question of what is necessary to
form a shared basis for **relevant** interaction.  I agree that a
"mind" without an environment of interaction is meaningless, in the
same way that any statement (or pattern of bits) without context is
meaningless.  However, I would argue that just as context is never
absolute, nor is there ever any need for it to be absolute, indeed for
practical (functional) reasons it can never be absolute, embodiment
need not be absolute, complete, or ultimately grounded.

I use the term "system" to refer as clearly as possible to any
distinct configuration of inter-related objects, with the implication
that the system must be physically realizable, therefore it models
neither infinities or infinitesimals, nor could it model a Cartesian
singularity of Self.

I use the term "agent" to refer as clearly as possible to a system
exhibiting "agency", i.e. behavior recognized as intentional, i.e.
operating on behalf of an entity.  It may be useful here to point out
that recognition of agency inheres in the observer (including the case
of the observer being the agent-system itself), rather than agency
being somehow an objectively measurable property of the system itself.
 Further, the "entity" which is the principal behind any agency is
entirely abstract (independent of any physical instantiation.)
[Understanding this is key to various paradoxes of personal identity.]

I distinguish between "absolute" and "proximate" grounding in regard
to the functional (and information-theoretic) impossibility of a
system modeling it's entire chain of connections to "ultimate
reality", while in actuality any system interacts only with its
proximate environment, just as to "know" an object is not to know what
it "is" but to know its interface.  To presume to know more would be
to presume some privileged mode of knowledge.

So in short, I agree with you that "embodiment" is essential to
meaningful interaction, thus for there to be agency, thus for there to
be a "Self" for the mind to know.  But I extend this and emphasize
that it's not necessary that such "embodiment" be physical, nor that
it be logically grounded in "ultimate reality", but rather, that
interaction is relevant and meaningful to the extent that some
(necessarily partial and arbitrarily distant from "reality") context
is shared.



Vow, this is well worded, structured in a really nice set of feedback loops.

What is a non physical embodiment. I would like to know more about this.

If we have a form of embodied AGI (with all the definitions and descriptions
above, even a non physical one not being grounded in an ultimate reality), and
there is space for movement/motion (see other posts and definitions for
movement), has anybody thought about DESIRE. How could desire come into this.
What kind of mind is desirable?



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90638550-c0e5be

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

Quoting Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Gudrun: I think this is not about
intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via
evolution) with senses and body.

Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very
terms "mind" and "body" in this context were splitting up something that
can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on
that? However casually...


I said in so many words
Though, even this is kind of wrong, because we behave
like there
is a split  between senses, body and mind.
They are more interconnected or however  you would like
to phrase it.
Problem of dualist thinking.



The background for me is this:  there is a great, untrumpeted revolution
going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all
founded on the idea of the "embodied mind". Cognitive science is based on
the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated
on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers.
Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is
a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a
science founded on robotics.

But the whole terminology of this new science - "embodied mind" - is still
lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm
interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough.


"Mike
Embodied Cog sci - is the idea that there is no thought without sensation,
emotion and
movement .
("no mentation without re-presentation"..?  hmm... still an idea in progress)
We need to find ways of reconnecting the pieces that language has dissected.
Hey, you're
an artist.. do me a photo or model :). -"

I do videos and installations, perhaps films. I write texts. I invent, too.
I think one would have to do what AI people to, invent an embodied AGI,
something that has a form of consciousness, senses, movement, body and is
really humorous, for a change.

"Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact 
with the

real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
a purely virtual environment?"
"Mike
The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of 
getting to

know,
understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb 
and blind

and
generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any 
physical game

let alone
a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name
for that
condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a
disembodied AGI
as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do
that to a
child, why do it to a computer?  It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia,
show you a
zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be
able to
imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I indicated, a proper, formal argument 
for this

needs to
be made - and I and many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't 
be long in

forthcoming, backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of
evidence
via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps 
mounting.


While doing my research, | got the impression that disembodied might be 
equal or

similar to spirit (holy spirit). this comes from religions and religious
ideologies and terminology. A disembodied, extracted mind (spirit) also refers
to purity. Extract, pure or purified, or a mind in a mind like a voice 
in one's

head. The voice from the aether, radio television signals, all form of
disembodied stuff. (Okay embodied via radiowaves and caught in boxes like
radios, I am a bit ironic here).
I am not sure, if this is about the idea of an extract of purity, 
something that

moves (??) in a purely disembodied world, an idea of an afterlife (again
religion), a pure spirit or mind  interconnected with whatever is left (I am
thinking about what Moravec said, I have to look into my thesis to find his
quote).
I like it as science fiction, but it also scares me. It seems to me that this
disembodied AGI is the product of people who are tired of the burden body,
their own bodies. They are tired of a body that screams mortality, while a
"pure mind" might promise immortality. Just some thoughts.
I think an analogy to alchemists might not be to far fetched.

Gudrun




-
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=4007604&id_secret=90635570-4ef122

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[x]

On Jan 28, 2008 7:56 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> X:Of course this is a variation on "the grounding problem" in AI.  But
> do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to
> effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think
> any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a
> limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to
> the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless
> of even proximate grounding in any functional sense?
>
> Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving
> examples of the agents/systems  and what you mean by absolute/ proximate
> grounding?

I see that you're talking about interaction between systems considered
to be "minds", and highlighting the question of what is necessary to
form a shared basis for **relevant** interaction.  I agree that a
"mind" without an environment of interaction is meaningless, in the
same way that any statement (or pattern of bits) without context is
meaningless.  However, I would argue that just as context is never
absolute, nor is there ever any need for it to be absolute, indeed for
practical (functional) reasons it can never be absolute, embodiment
need not be absolute, complete, or ultimately grounded.

I use the term "system" to refer as clearly as possible to any
distinct configuration of inter-related objects, with the implication
that the system must be physically realizable, therefore it models
neither infinities or infinitesimals, nor could it model a Cartesian
singularity of Self.

I use the term "agent" to refer as clearly as possible to a system
exhibiting "agency", i.e. behavior recognized as intentional, i.e.
operating on behalf of an entity.  It may be useful here to point out
that recognition of agency inheres in the observer (including the case
of the observer being the agent-system itself), rather than agency
being somehow an objectively measurable property of the system itself.
 Further, the "entity" which is the principal behind any agency is
entirely abstract (independent of any physical instantiation.)
[Understanding this is key to various paradoxes of personal identity.]

I distinguish between "absolute" and "proximate" grounding in regard
to the functional (and information-theoretic) impossibility of a
system modeling it's entire chain of connections to "ultimate
reality", while in actuality any system interacts only with its
proximate environment, just as to "know" an object is not to know what
it "is" but to know its interface.  To presume to know more would be
to presume some privileged mode of knowledge.

So in short, I agree with you that "embodiment" is essential to
meaningful interaction, thus for there to be agency, thus for there to
be a "Self" for the mind to know.  But I extend this and emphasize
that it's not necessary that such "embodiment" be physical, nor that
it be logically grounded in "ultimate reality", but rather, that
interaction is relevant and meaningful to the extent that some
(necessarily partial and arbitrarily distant from "reality") context
is shared.

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90632239-135dac

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

X:Of course this is a variation on "the grounding problem" in AI.  But
do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to
effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think
any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a
limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to
the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless
of even proximate grounding in any functional sense?

Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving 
examples of the agents/systems  and what you mean by absolute/ proximate 
grounding?



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90585588-e20790

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[x]

On Jan 28, 2008 6:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with
> the
> > real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
> > arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
> > a purely virtual environment?
>
> The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting
> to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf,
> dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't
> play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously
> impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all
> that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very
> severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that
> to a child, why do it to a computer?  It might be able to spout an
> encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it
> wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I
> indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and
> many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming,
> backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence
> via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps
> mounting.

Of course this is a variation on "the grounding problem" in AI.  But
do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to
effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think
any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a
limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to
the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless
of even proximate grounding in any functional sense?

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90569120-23ee79

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Stathis:  Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with 
the

real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
a purely virtual environment?


The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting 
to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, 
dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't 
play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously 
impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all 
that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very 
severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that 
to a child, why do it to a computer?  It might be able to spout an 
encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it 
wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I 
indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and 
many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, 
backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence 
via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps 
mounting. 



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90550639-4bac43

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[x]

On Jan 28, 2008 4:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the
> real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
> arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
> a purely virtual environment?

I think the answer to the above is obvious, but the more interesting
question is whether it even makes sense to speak of a "mind"
independent of some environment of interaction, whether physical or
virtual.

Think "agency", folks.

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90547696-533cd5

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 28/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The background for me is this:  there is a great, untrumpeted revolution
> going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all
> founded on the idea of the "embodied mind". Cognitive science is based on
> the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated
> on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers.
> Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is
> a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a
> science founded on robotics.

Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the
real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you
arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in
a purely virtual environment?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90526349-a6e3cb

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?..P.S.

[Mike Tintner]

Gudrun cont..

Actually I got that wrong - a classic example of the old linguistic biasses 
and traps - it's more like:


Cog Sci is the idea that thought is a program

Embodied Cog sci - is the idea that there is no thought without sensation, 
emotion and movement .


("no mentation without re-presentation"..?  hmm... still an idea in 
progress)


We need to find ways of reconnecting the pieces that language has dissected. 
Hey, you're an artist.. do me a photo or model :). 



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90523934-d9e0df

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Gudrun: I think this is not about
intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via
evolution) with senses and body.

Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very 
terms "mind" and "body" in this context were splitting up something that 
can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on 
that? However casually...


The background for me is this:  there is a great, untrumpeted revolution 
going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all 
founded on the idea of the "embodied mind". Cognitive science is based on 
the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated 
on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers. 
Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is 
a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a 
science founded on robotics.


But the whole terminology of this new science - "embodied mind" - is still 
lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm 
interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough.



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90517727-b31b76

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 27, 2008 1:50 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 27 January 2008, Thomas McCabe wrote:
> > My computer can happily print out ten gigabytes worth of messages
> > without any movement at all.
>
> Energy is movement. Even a quantum computer has many moving parts.
>
> - Bryan
> 
> Bryan Bishop
> http://heybryan.org/
>
> -
> 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/?&;
>

Yes, but not movement in the obvious, mechanical sense, which is what
Mike seems to be referring to.

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90358966-769545

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sunday 27 January 2008, Thomas McCabe wrote:
> My computer can happily print out ten gigabytes worth of messages
> without any movement at all.

Energy is movement. Even a quantum computer has many moving parts.

- Bryan

Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90358189-c501f1

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

On 27 Jan 2008, at 16:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


On 27/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind  
doesn't
work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology,  
no AI.
If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think, thanks in part to  
mirrror
neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why.  
But

that's another post).


So should paralysis or amputation make someone less intelligent?

|I do not think that this is the question, though. If one is born  
paralysed (I

have taken care of a cerebral palsy kid when I was young) - there is no
knowledge and no possibility of learning co-ordinbated movements  
(limbs and
thoughts). I| am sure this depends on the severity of the non able  
bodied

person's

problem
 If one has the memory, it is different. My partner has lost an arm, it
is still existent in his mind, he feels pain in it occasionally and he  
forgets

sometimes that he hasn't got it anymore. I think this is not about
intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via
evolution) with senses and body.
Though, even this is kind of wrong, because it behaves there is a split  
between senses, body and mind. They are more interconnected or whatever  
you would like to say.

Problem of dualist thinking.

Gudrun



--
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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/?&; 
ca2ce5




-
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=4007604&id_secret=90341333-a8ccba

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

Quoting Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


On 27/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't
work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI.
If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror
neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But
that's another post).


So should paralysis or amputation make someone less intelligent?


|I do not think that this is the question, though. If one is born paralysed (I
have taken care of a cerebral palsy kid when I was young) - there is no
knowledge and no possibility of learning co-ordinbated movements (limbs and
thoughts). I| am sure this depends on the severity of the non able bodied
person. If one has the memory, it is different. My partner has lost an arm, it
is still existent in his mind, he feels pain in it occasionally and he forgets
sometimes that he hasn't got it anymore. I think this is not about
intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via
evolution) with senses and body.
Gudrun



--
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90339202-4c6eb3

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 27, 2008 9:18 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samantha: MT: You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the
> > puppeteer.   Samantha:What's that, elan vitale, a "soul", a
> > "consciousness" that is
> independent of the puppet?
>
> It's significant that you make quite the wrong assumption. You too are
> fooled. The puppeteer is the human operator/programmer.

You could just as easily say that we are puppets of the machines. We
can't exist nowadays without computers. If, tomorrow, all the
computers in the world stopped working, the global economy would
utterly collapse.

> V. simple and
> obvious. Computers do not actually EXIST.

Then what, exactly, are you using to communicate with us?

> All that exists here are lumps of
> metal - until human beings come along - and give them life and meaning.
> Without humans they lie there, dead.

Without food, humans lie there, dead. Clearly, cows and corn are the
true masters of this planet. We must be just their puppets- after all,
do not we depend on a constant supply of food to exist? Without them,
we are nothing.

> All your thinking, I suggest,  is predicated on an obvious falsehood - that
> computers exist in their own right and are not just tools/extensions of
> human beings.

Most current computers are tools. This does not automatically mean
that all computers everywhere, indefinitely far into the future, must
always be tools.

>  And it is still a very large set of unsolved problems as to
> what will be required to make a robot or computer exist in its own right.

I don't see how the statement "the computer I'm using to write this
email doesn't exist" is any less absurd than the statement "2 + 2 =
5".

> If you are serious either as scientist or technologist, you have to start
> from the fact of those unsolved problems, and not just wishfully assume that
> they have all been magically answered. You can be sure that the answers,
> whatever they are, will transform your current thinking.

We all know it is a hard problem. We, the human species, have solved
hard problems countless times before, and there's no reason to think
we'll be magically stopped by this one.

> Re why only a moving body can think, it is still a large philosophical and
> scientific problem, and I'm just in the middle of working it out ! (But I'm
> increasingly confident it is soluble and soon).

Cart before the horse. Arguing a position and then coming up with an
explanation for it is not reason, it is rationalization. See
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/the-bottom-line.html,
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/rationalization.html.

> The basic biological
> evidence for that assertion though is obvious -  the only self-sufficient
> "in-their-own-right" entities that can actually think are indeed moving
> organisms/ animals.

Specifically, bacteria. No higher organisms, including us, could exist
without the mitochondria and other symbiotic prokaryotes in our cells.
Please read http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html to hear what your
argument sounds like from the other side.

> And the classic fact is that when a sea squirt stops
> moving, it immediately devours its own brain.
>
> The other basic fact here is again obvious if you look at the whole and not
> just a part. Above it was case of don't just look at the computer look at
> everything that happens with and around it, like the human operator. Here
> it's a sub-case of that - don't just look at the thoughts/ideas - the print,
> say on the screen, or the writing on the page - look at how they are
> produced.  And - hey - they don't happen without movement - someone
> typing/writing them.

My computer can happily print out ten gigabytes worth of messages
without any movement at all.

> As Daniel Wolpert says:
>
> "Movement is the only way we have of interacting with the world, whether
> foraging for food or attracting a waiter's attention. Indeed, all
> communication, including speech, sign language, gestures and writing, is
> mediated via the motor system.

This is specific to *humans* (and animals more generally). Computers
and animals are very, very different. A computer can communicate with
the world by sending pulses of high and low voltage along a wire. A
human cannot.

> Taking this viewpoint, the purpose of the
> human brain is to use sensory signals to determine future actions. The goal
> of our lab is to understand the computational principles underlying human
> sensorimotor control"
>
> http://learning.eng.cam.ac.uk/wolpert/
>
> (But that still doesn't solve the problem I referred to which is to explain
> why thinking generally is predicated in its very content on moving bodies -
> and not just produced by moving bodies).

Please, for Eru's sake, read up on rationality and logic. If you start
off by assuming a wrong statement, and then try to solve the "problem"
of giving evidence for it, you're never going to get anywhere.

>
> -
> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agir

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

Quoting Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.

You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the puppeteer.

And contrary to Eliezer:
"A transhuman is a transhuman mind; anything else is a side issue."

the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't
work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI.
If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror
neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But
that's another post).

I quite agree.
Don't people like Brooks (MIT), and now Minsky favour embodied AI, contrary to
something like this grey nebulous soup of common disembodied AI stuff that has
been propagated by Moravec et al.
Gudrun



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90338136-72f44b

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 27, 2008 8:40 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben:   MT: Venter has changed everything
> >> today - including the paradigms that govern both science and AI..
> Ben:  Lets not overblow things -- please note that Venter's team has not yet
> > synthesized an artificial organism.
>
> Here's why I think Venter's so important - to quote a post of mine to an
> evo-psych group [I also recommend here BTW Dennis Noble's "The Music of
> Life" - re "genetic keyboard"]:
>
> "Over and above its immediate, technological significance for Artificial
> Life, I see this as the end of an era in science. I think the defining
> scientific paradigm of the last 50 years - the genetic code, or program, and
> with it the idea that we are determined by our genes - is now dead (or in
> its death throes).  [I would define genetic determinism BTW as ALLOWING for,
> and in no way excluding, environmental influences].

Genetic determinism is long dead. No serious scientist maintains that
we are totally determined by our genes. Countless studies have been
done with identical twins to demonstrate this.

> I think the replacement for that paradigm is now clear, even if it hasn't
> been exactly defined, and that is - the genetic keyboard. That might not be
> immediately obvious. But if you think about it, what has happened - Craig
> Venter & co creating a new genome - is an example of the genetic keyboard
> playing on itself, i.e. one genome [Craig Venter] has played with another
> genome and will eventually and inevitably play with itself. Clearly it is in
> the nature of the genome to recreate itself

There's nothing in the genome about modifying the genome. When the
genome was written, modifying the genome was physically impossible, so
there's not going to be any code for it.

> - and not just to execute a
> program. (And indeed, had the computational paradigm been properly thought
> through, it would have been noted that it is in the nature of programs - as
> actually produced and existing on computers - that they are NOT stable
> entities but  are normally,  and more or less demand to be,  endlessly
> reprogrammed - by the use, as it happens, of a keyboard).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Conway's Game of Life is Turing-complete. It can do any calculation
you, me, or a computer could do (this has been mathematically proven).
It requires absolutely no human interference whatsoever.

> Craig Venter  has disavowed genetic determinism: "There are two fallacies to
> be avoided," Dr Venter's team write in the journal Science.
> "Determinism, the idea that all characteristics of a person are 'hard-wired'
> by the genome; and reductionism, that now the human sequence is completely
> known, it is just a matter of time before our understanding of gene
> functions and interactions will provide a complete causal description of
> human variability."

Both of these views were discredited decades ago. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Identical_twins.

> More significantly for EP, Venter has also disavowed natural selection:

If anyone here thinks that natural selection is in any way not
confirmed by an unimaginably huge mountain of evidence, please read
the Talk.Origins FAQ
(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).

> "The key problem is that far from being the simple computer code we once
> thought it was, DNA is fabulously complex.

DNA itself is very simple (phosphate, sugar, one of four bases). DNA's
effects are extremely complex, but be careful not to confuse the two.

> When I last interviewed Venter a
> decade ago, he said our DNA was too complex to be designed by man

A full Linux distribution is probably roughly as complex as the human
genome. See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/natural-selecti.html,
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jcollie/sle/.

> and
> probably even too complex for natural selection.

There had better be math to substantiate this. A vague feeling of
"this is much too complex for evolution!" does not override a hundred
and fifty years of experimental evidence from every subfield of
biology.

> The problem has worsened:
> "With the publication now of the full genome, it's clearly more complicated
> than ever.

When the human genome was published, it actually turned out to be less
complex than people had thought. We only have around 20,000-25,000
genes, less than half of some earlier estimates.

> "All our data from the environment and other places is telling us there are
> different components to our personalities. Certainly step by step everything's
> just a point mutation and things change. But I don't think that can explain
> everything. People have this simplistic view of Darwinian evolution as
> random point mutations in the genetic code followed by natural selection.
> No, I don't think that would have got us out of our genome."
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2752196.ece
>
> P.S. I would acknowledge that there is still philosophic

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Samantha: MT: You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the
puppeteer.   Samantha:What's that, elan vitale, a "soul", a 
"consciousness" that is

independent of the puppet?

It's significant that you make quite the wrong assumption. You too are 
fooled. The puppeteer is the human operator/programmer. V. simple and 
obvious. Computers do not actually EXIST. All that exists here are lumps of 
metal - until human beings come along - and give them life and meaning. 
Without humans they lie there, dead.


All your thinking, I suggest,  is predicated on an obvious falsehood - that 
computers exist in their own right and are not just tools/extensions of 
human beings.  And it is still a very large set of unsolved problems as to 
what will be required to make a robot or computer exist in its own right.


If you are serious either as scientist or technologist, you have to start 
from the fact of those unsolved problems, and not just wishfully assume that 
they have all been magically answered. You can be sure that the answers, 
whatever they are, will transform your current thinking.


Re why only a moving body can think, it is still a large philosophical and 
scientific problem, and I'm just in the middle of working it out ! (But I'm 
increasingly confident it is soluble and soon). The basic biological 
evidence for that assertion though is obvious -  the only self-sufficient 
"in-their-own-right" entities that can actually think are indeed moving 
organisms/ animals. And the classic fact is that when a sea squirt stops 
moving, it immediately devours its own brain.


The other basic fact here is again obvious if you look at the whole and not 
just a part. Above it wasa  case of don't just look at the computer look at 
everything that happens with and around it, like the human operator. Here 
it's a sub-case of that - don't just look at the thoughts/ideas - the print, 
say on the screen, or the writing on the page - look at how they are 
produced.  And - hey - they don't happen without movement - someone 
typing/writing them.


As Daniel Wolpert says:

"Movement is the only way we have of interacting with the world, whether 
foraging for food or attracting a waiter's attention. Indeed, all 
communication, including speech, sign language, gestures and writing, is 
mediated via the motor system. Taking this viewpoint, the purpose of the 
human brain is to use sensory signals to determine future actions. The goal 
of our lab is to understand the computational principles underlying human 
sensorimotor control"


http://learning.eng.cam.ac.uk/wolpert/

(But that still doesn't solve the problem I referred to which is to explain 
why thinking generally is predicated in its very content on moving bodies - 
and not just produced by moving bodies). 



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90332223-75d797

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Ben Goertzel]

> Craig
> Venter & co creating a new genome -

Just to be clear: They did not create a new genome, rather they are re-creating
a subset of a previously existing one...

>is an example of the genetic keyboard
> playing on itself, i.e. one genome [Craig Venter] has played with another
> genome and will eventually and inevitably play with itself.

Yes

>Clearly it is in
> the nature of the genome to recreate itself - and not just to execute a
> program.

You lost me here, sorry.  Nothing in Venter's work argues against the
Digital Physics hypothesis, which holds that the whole universe is a giant
computer program of sorts.

> P.P.S. The full new paradigm is something like -  "the self-driving/
> self-conducting machine" -  it is actually the self that is the rest of the
> body and brain, that interactively plays upon, and is played by, the genome,
> (rather than the genome literally playing upon itself). And just as science
> generally has left the self out of its paradigms,

On the contrary, as Thomas Metzinger has masterfully argued in "Being No One"
(and see also the book "The Curse of the Self", whose author's name eludes
me momentarily), the "self" has been well-understood by neuropsychology
as an emergent aspect of the dynamics of certain
complex systems.  Like will and reflective-consciousness, it is an extremely
useful construct that also seems to have some irrational and undesirable
(even from its own point of view) aspects.

> so cog sci has left the
> indispensible human programmer/operator out of its computational paradigms.

It is true that human programmers are indispensible to current software systems,
except for simple self-propagating systems like computer viruses and worms ...
but this is just because software is at an early stage of development, it's not
something intrinsic to the nature of software versus "physical" systems (which
as Fredkin and others have argued,
may sensibly be conceived of as "just software on a different
operating system"...

-- Ben G

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90331620-260585

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Ben:   MT: Venter has changed everything

today - including the paradigms that govern both science and AI..

Ben:  Lets not overblow things -- please note that Venter's team has not yet

synthesized an artificial organism.


Here's why I think Venter's so important - to quote a post of mine to an 
evo-psych group [I also recommend here BTW Dennis Noble's "The Music of 
Life" - re "genetic keyboard"]:


"Over and above its immediate, technological significance for Artificial 
Life, I see this as the end of an era in science. I think the defining 
scientific paradigm of the last 50 years - the genetic code, or program, and 
with it the idea that we are determined by our genes - is now dead (or in 
its death throes).  [I would define genetic determinism BTW as ALLOWING for, 
and in no way excluding, environmental influences].


I think the replacement for that paradigm is now clear, even if it hasn't 
been exactly defined, and that is - the genetic keyboard. That might not be 
immediately obvious. But if you think about it, what has happened - Craig 
Venter & co creating a new genome - is an example of the genetic keyboard 
playing on itself, i.e. one genome [Craig Venter] has played with another 
genome and will eventually and inevitably play with itself. Clearly it is in 
the nature of the genome to recreate itself - and not just to execute a 
program. (And indeed, had the computational paradigm been properly thought 
through, it would have been noted that it is in the nature of programs - as 
actually produced and existing on computers - that they are NOT stable 
entities but  are normally,  and more or less demand to be,  endlessly 
reprogrammed - by the use, as it happens, of a keyboard).


Craig Venter  has disavowed genetic determinism: "There are two fallacies to 
be avoided," Dr Venter's team write in the journal Science.
"Determinism, the idea that all characteristics of a person are 'hard-wired' 
by the genome; and reductionism, that now the human sequence is completely 
known, it is just a matter of time before our understanding of gene 
functions and interactions will provide a complete causal description of 
human variability."


More significantly for EP, Venter has also disavowed natural selection:

"The key problem is that far from being the simple computer code we once 
thought it was, DNA is fabulously complex. When I last interviewed Venter a 
decade ago, he said our DNA was too complex to be designed by man and 
probably even too complex for natural selection. The problem has worsened: 
"With the publication now of the full genome, it's clearly more complicated 
than ever.


"All our data from the environment and other places is telling us there are 
different components to our personalities. Certainly step by step everything's 
just a point mutation and things change. But I don't think that can explain 
everything. People have this simplistic view of Darwinian evolution as 
random point mutations in the genetic code followed by natural selection. 
No, I don't think that would have got us out of our genome."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2752196.ece

P.S. I would acknowledge that there is still philosophical/scientific work 
to be done  -  the case for the changeover of paradigms has been not fully 
made. But it is now inevitable.


P.P.S. The full new paradigm is something like -  "the self-driving/ 
self-conducting machine" -  it is actually the self that is the rest of the 
body and brain, that interactively plays upon, and is played by, the genome, 
(rather than the genome literally playing upon itself). And just as science 
generally has left the self out of its paradigms, so cog sci has left the 
indispensible human programmer/operator out of its computational paradigms.


To bring in the Gudrun discussion, you could say that science is about to 
tell us that what you - your self - do with your body (as distinct from how 
it works)  is not science but art (and, let's not forget, technology).  The 
idea that you are deterministically destined to play only one kind of music 
on your keyboard is quite mad - a keyboard, by definition, like your body 
and brain, offers you an infinite range of possibilities.




-
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=4007604&id_secret=90331155-b349d9

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stan Nilsen]

Ben Goertzel wrote:

(in part)

Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have
kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a terrorist
mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny...

Thoughts?

-- Ben G



Could it be that skepticism, the life blood of the scientific community, 
coupled with "deep thinking" is totally incompatible with politics? 
Deep thinking often concludes with "you can't prove that" or "I'm not 
convinced, show me."


The terrorist (ultimate politician) believes without proof.  This simple 
belief is a convenient reason to raise the battle cry - the cry to 
charge forward and die if necessary, and maybe even when not.  Likely 
the heroics is the "reason to be", the cause only a supporting cast member.


It's no wonder the two paths seldom cross.  Exception, the Singularity 
Institute?


Then there's the Engineers, just have to write a virus that spans the 
universe... And Entrepreneurs who figure out ways to make their fortune 
using the virus.  And the...


Who said there is General Intelligence?  Perhaps the AGI will be the 
first GI.


Stan Nilsen





-
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=4007604&id_secret=90330597-53c0d8

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 27/01/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't
> work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI.
> If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror
> neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But
> that's another post).

So should paralysis or amputation make someone less intelligent?




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90317259-25c896

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:

Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon,  
as a

substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.

You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the  
puppeteer.


What's that, elan vitale, a "soul", a "consciousness" that is  
independent of the puppet?   Well, I don't disbelieve it is  
possible.   After all an sufficiently advanced AGI with uploads or  
personality fragments could create "puppets" and run them if it wanted  
to.  But I have zero evidence this is in fact the case here.   Do you?





And contrary to Eliezer:
"A transhuman is a transhuman mind; anything else is a side issue."

the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind  
doesn't work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no  
psychology, no AI. If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think,  
thanks in part to mirrror neurons, that we are now on the verge of  
finally pinning down why. But that's another post).




So you don't believe in a puppeteer after all?  No substrate, no  
computer, eh?   What is movement?  Change within a domain over time?
Mirror neurons don't seem to make a case for you seem to be  
intimating.  But it isn't quite clear to me what you mean to say.   
Please explain.


- samantha

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90315706-b3882c

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:


Ben,

Thanks for reply. I think though that Samantha may be more  
representative - i.e. most here simply aren't interested in non- 
computer alternatives. Which is fine.


The Singularity Institute exists for one purpose.  That I point that  
out does not in the least mean I don't consider anything else important.





I joined mainly to learn  - about future possibilities generally.  
It's not an area I've thought about much, other than in relation to  
the future of human society.


I can't recall, though, a single superAGI discussion that struck me  
as other than pure fantasy, or gave me anything to conjure with -  
whereas your brief discussion of pathogens immediately gives me  
something to think about.


Then you are in a more specialized area that doesn't make a lot of  
sense to you.  So why act as if it should change its speciality rather  
than move on to something that better fits your needs?


(I guess the immediate response to your spectre is that if they can  
produce more deadly pathogens, they will be able to engineer some  
form of bio-resistance - which evokes the prospect of articial life  
arms races - although you might get a nuclear-comparable situation,  
where every state would be too scared to use them, for fear of being  
counter-attacked).


I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally  
may be artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore  
intelligence may be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more  
particularly, that Natasha and any other transhumanists haven't put  
forward some half-way reasonable possibilities here.  But perhaps  
Samantha & others would regard such matters as offlimits?


Here?  On this list that exists for rather something else for the most  
part?  These topics have been talked about by many transhumanists and  
extropians.   Just because you don't find that discussion here on this  
list or much discussed in your relative brief time in these places  
doesn't mean that they aren't thought about  or that they are "off  
limits" in any meaningful way.  But organizations and lists do have at  
least general charters and it is pointless pushing them toward  
something that may be interesting enough but isn't particularly their  
charter.


It's a pity though because I do think that Venter has changed  
everything today - including the paradigms that govern both science  
and AI.




Posh.  Make your case.  Personally I don't think it can be made  
convincingly.


- samantha

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90315113-0bcbeb

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Ben Goertzel]

Mike,

> I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally may be
> artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore intelligence may
> be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more particularly, that Natasha and any
> other transhumanists haven't put forward some half-way reasonable
> possibilities here.  But perhaps Samantha & others would regard such matters
> as offlimits?

I know Samantha well enough to know she would NOT consider this kind
of topic "off limits" ;-)  ... nor would hardly anyone on this list...

My attitude (and I suspect Samantha shares the same general attitude)
is that, while genetic engineering and other aspects of biotech are
extremely interesting, AGI has a lot more potential to radically
transform life and mind.

Yes, genetic engineering is a big deal relative to ordinary life
today.  But compared to transhuman AGI, it's small potatoes...

The main difference you have with this attitude seems to be that you
feel AGI is a remote, implausible notion, whereas we feel it is almost
an inevitability in the medium term, and a possibility even in the
short term


> It's a pity though because I do think that Venter has changed everything
> today - including the paradigms that govern both science and AI.
>

Lets not overblow things -- please note that Venter's team has not yet
synthesized an artificial organism.  Also, they didn't really design
the organism, from scratch, they're just regenerating a (slightly
modified) existing design...

Theirs is great work though, and I don't doubt that it will advance
further in the next years...

But, there is nothing particularly surprising about what Venter's team
has done, it's stuff that we have known to be possible for a while ...
he just managed to cut through some of the practical irritations of
that sort of work and make more rapid progress than others...

ben

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90312741-593a7b

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 26, 2008 9:07 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
> substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
> theoretical problem-solving ability.

See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=19 for a more detailed
explanations.

> You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the puppeteer.

Humans have been just as "puppeted" by evolution as computers have by
humans. See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/thou-art-godsha.html,
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/adaptation-exec.html,
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/evolutionary-ps.html. We still
don't need or want evolution running our day-to-day lives (see
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/conjuring-an-ev.html).

> And contrary to Eliezer:
> "A transhuman is a transhuman mind; anything else is a side issue."
>
> the evidence of billions of years of evolution

Only applies to evolved creatures, which are a tiny subset of all
possible minds. See
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/no-evolution-fo.html.

> says that the mind doesn't
> work without the body.

A computer has a body; it's just made of silicon instead of meat. See
http://www.setileague.org/articles/meat.htm for a humorous take on
this.

> No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI.
> If it can't move, it can't think.

Do you seriously think that *two identical chips*- one of which is
placed on a movable apparatus, and one of which isn't- are going to
show dramatic differences in intelligence? The code required for
motion, in comparison with the full complexity of a mind, is tiny. You
can program a robot to move with ten lines of BASIC.

>  (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror
> neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But
> that's another post).

An AI won't *have* neurons. What neurons do or don't do isn't even relevant.

>
> -
> 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/?&;
>

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90309600-3bd61e

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.

You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the puppeteer.

And contrary to Eliezer:
"A transhuman is a transhuman mind; anything else is a side issue."

the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't 
work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI. 
If it can't move, it can't think.  (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror 
neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But 
that's another post).



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90305440-8a6fef

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Saturday 26 January 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Perhaps you (or someone) need to make a sufficient case that
> potential   treat/promise is as great in that area.  There is
> certainly room for more than one highly focused organization so there
> is no need to argue that the Singularity Institute should be focused
> on something more or other than its current focus imho.

Yeah, I agree. At the moment I am busy doing research into tissue 
engineering in particular, checking out some possibilities. I hate to 
say "I'll check back in later if I find anything," so I'll just leave 
my door open and if anybody wants to help me track down these 
possibilities, you're welcome to get in touch with me in the mean time.

- Bryan

Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90300319-304b66

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Thomas McCabe]

On Jan 26, 2008 8:50 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Correct me  - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to
> be focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that
> is always considered to be a *computer*.
>
> However, there is still no sign of that ever happening

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/stoopid.lis

> - of a disembodied
> computer

A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.

> achieving true intelligence - (or even how such a thing, were it
> possible, could avoid being simply switched off).

http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/10/the-power-of-intelligence/

> What however now seems extremely probable  is that Artificial Life will
> happen. Today the first artificial genome was announced:
>
> http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
>
> (any significance in the choice of Mycoplasma genitalium?)
>
> Awed hush, please. Soon there will be an artificial cell.

http://www.singinst.org/upload/mindisall-tv07.pdf

> It also seems highly probable now with Darpa that we will have robots freely
> roaming the earth eventually - however long it may take.
>
> (These are the areas where all the serious money is going).

DARPA's budget for ARPANet in 1970 was $1 million, out of $1 billion
or so. All the 'serious money' was probably going to eight-track tapes
 and abandoned mainframe computers.

> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case
> apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -
> future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?

Because millions of people already think about short-term threats, and
very few think about long-term threats. If nobody thinks about
long-term threats, one of them is eventually going to kill us.

>  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/?&;

 - Tom

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90299709-848b10

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Ben,

Thanks for reply. I think though that Samantha may be more representative - 
i.e. most here simply aren't interested in non-computer alternatives. Which 
is fine.


I joined mainly to learn  - about future possibilities generally. It's not 
an area I've thought about much, other than in relation to the future of 
human society.


I can't recall, though, a single superAGI discussion that struck me as other 
than pure fantasy, or gave me anything to conjure with - whereas your brief 
discussion of pathogens immediately gives me something to think about. (I 
guess the immediate response to your spectre is that if they can produce 
more deadly pathogens, they will be able to engineer some form of 
bio-resistance - which evokes the prospect of articial life arms races - 
although you might get a nuclear-comparable situation, where every state 
would be too scared to use them, for fear of being counter-attacked).


I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally may be 
artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore intelligence may 
be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more particularly, that Natasha and any 
other transhumanists haven't put forward some half-way reasonable 
possibilities here.  But perhaps Samantha & others would regard such matters 
as offlimits?


It's a pity though because I do think that Venter has changed everything 
today - including the paradigms that govern both science and AI.



Ben: Hi,



Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case
apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -
future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?


While I don't agree that AGI is less realistic than artificial
biological species,
I agree the latter are also interesting.

What do you have to say about them, though?  ;-)

One thing that seems clear to me is that engineering artificial pathogens
is an easier problem than engineering artificial antibodies.

The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the 
sun,

disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever

If advanced genetic engineering solves these problems, then what happens?
Are we totally screwed?

Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have
kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a 
terrorist

mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny...

Thoughts?





-
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=4007604&id_secret=90295887-eb9ff6

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 26, 2008, at 9:57 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:


On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:

Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
"threats"/possibilities -   future artificial species as opposed to
future computer simulations?


This is bias in the community. The majority of the information from
SingInst, for example, focuses on digital ai and not the potential ai
that we can get from the bio sector, like through synbio and
gengineering and tissue engineering of neurons and brains.



Perhaps you (or someone) need to make a sufficient case that potential  
treat/promise is as great in that area.  There is certainly room for  
more than one highly focused organization so there is no need to argue  
that the Singularity Institute should be focused on something more or  
other than its current focus imho.


- samantha

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90284449-3b0dfe

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[gifting]

Quoting Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


On Jan 26, 2008 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> "threats"/possibilities -   future artificial species as opposed to
> future computer simulations?

This is bias in the community. The majority of the information from
SingInst, for example, focuses on digital ai and not the potential ai
that we can get from the bio sector, like through synbio and
gengineering and tissue engineering of neurons and brains.



I guess limitation of biological substrate are too strict, and there
is not much to hope for from this side. Maybe we'd be able to
construct a genetically engineered scientist with huge brain that will
develop AGI, before cracking this problem ourselves ;-)




--
Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


If, of course an alien lands, hijacks a scientist and infuses him or her with
some new knowledge and super-powers then he or she could develop a super AGI
that eradicates humankind. Only joking. I suppose, this is some form of 
Central

European wit.
Gudrun Bielz



-
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=4007604&id_secret=90272226-02c809

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Saturday 26 January 2008, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
> I guess limitation of biological substrate are too strict, and there
> is not much to hope for from this side. Maybe we'd be able to
> construct a genetically engineered scientist with huge brain that
> will develop AGI, before cracking this problem ourselves ;-)

No, you're missing the point. A while back on SL4, maybe years ago, 
somebody said "I am an ai" and that we are already intelligences, and 
therefore we just need to focus on (1) how to recursively improve our 
own intelligences and (2) finding the theoretical basis for our own 
intelligence in the first place. The biological substrate isn't strict 
at all, look at what we are able to do. Once we can harvest and capture 
what evolution has already learned, well, we can start going faster.

- Bryan

Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90261498-976eb4

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Vladimir Nesov]

On Jan 26, 2008 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> > Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> > case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> > "threats"/possibilities -   future artificial species as opposed to
> > future computer simulations?
>
> This is bias in the community. The majority of the information from
> SingInst, for example, focuses on digital ai and not the potential ai
> that we can get from the bio sector, like through synbio and
> gengineering and tissue engineering of neurons and brains.
>

I guess limitation of biological substrate are too strict, and there
is not much to hope for from this side. Maybe we'd be able to
construct a genetically engineered scientist with huge brain that will
develop AGI, before cracking this problem ourselves ;-)

-- 
Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90259355-e04be3

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Nathan Cravens]

> The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
> mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
> has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the
> sun,
> disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever
>

Biowarfare probably hasn't caught on because it's difficult to control, like
a destructive gift that keeps on giving. Its difficult to devise an antidote
for something that may mutate with the chance of taking out both the target
and the shooter. Tit-for-tat in a war game is not an ideal stratagem... ;)


> If advanced genetic engineering solves these problems, then what happens?
> Are we totally screwed?
>
> Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have
> kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a
> terrorist
> mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny...
>
>
What's the point really, it's not like DC runs things... They just make sure
the checks get cashed. Once an AGI helps us root out the cause of violence,
my utopian sentiment suggests terrorism will be a null point. Rage against
peace may be a future slogan. Until then, I hope we have thinking posthuman
software before the stodgily human acting hardware comes available to do
what humans do, stay 'right' by default by eliminating the other other
'right' or otherwise.

- Nathan Cravens
effortlesseconomy.com

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90258841-e9a14e

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Bryan Bishop]

On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> "threats"/possibilities -   future artificial species as opposed to
> future computer simulations?

This is bias in the community. The majority of the information from 
SingInst, for example, focuses on digital ai and not the potential ai 
that we can get from the bio sector, like through synbio and 
gengineering and tissue engineering of neurons and brains.

- Bryan

Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90255055-ed3357

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[x]

On Jan 26, 2008 5:55 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One thing that seems clear to me is that engineering artificial pathogens
> is an easier problem than engineering artificial antibodies.

Yes.


> The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
> mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
> has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the sun,
> disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever
>
> If advanced genetic engineering solves these problems, then what happens?
> Are we totally screwed?
>
> Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have
> kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a terrorist
> mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny...

I think it's significant that in general, as a reflection of the arrow
of entropy, problems at a particular level of complexity are "solved"
or effectively handled, at a higher level of complexity.

I'll abstain from elaborating on the yin/yang of the doubled-edged
sword of technology, the Red Queen's Race, and the relationship
between increasing scope of objective consequences and increasing
context of subjective values as the game evolves...

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90235889-265a09

Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?

[Ben Goertzel]

Hi,

> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case
> apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -
> future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?

While I don't agree that AGI is less realistic than artificial
biological species,
I agree the latter are also interesting.

What do you have to say about them, though?  ;-)

One thing that seems clear to me is that engineering artificial pathogens
is an easier problem than engineering artificial antibodies.

The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the sun,
disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever

If advanced genetic engineering solves these problems, then what happens?
Are we totally screwed?

Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have
kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a terrorist
mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny...

Thoughts?

-- Ben G

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90224593-1b6491

[singularity] Wrong focus?

[Mike Tintner]

Correct me  - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to be 
focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that is 
always considered to be a *computer*.

However, there is still no sign of that ever happening - of a disembodied 
computer achieving true intelligence - (or even how such a thing, were it 
possible, could avoid being simply switched off).

What however now seems extremely probable  is that Artificial Life will happen. 
Today the first artificial genome was announced:

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/

(any significance in the choice of Mycoplasma genitalium?)

Awed hush, please. Soon there will be an artificial cell.

It also seems highly probable now with Darpa that we will have robots freely 
roaming the earth eventually - however long it may take.

(These are the areas where all the serious money is going).

Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case 
apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -   
future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations? 

-
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=4007604&id_secret=90224064-934e45