I am doing almost no programming (other than some simple website
stuff) but I have started to wonder if my basic ideas about language
might be used as a basis for improving web search engines. So I
started with my usual, fairly sophisticated, ideas, but then I started
wondering how I could get them
I am wondering about how Discrete Reasoning is different than Logic. I
assume that Discrete Reasoning could be described, modelled or
represented by Logic, but as a more practical method, logic would be a
tool to use with Discrete Reasoning rather than as a representational
substrate.
Discrete Rea
hance that more effective observations will be obtained will
increase.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mike Archbold via AGI
wrote:
> It sounds like you need both for AI, certainly there is always a place
> for logic. What's "discrete reasoning"?
>
> On 6/
27;s Blog
> <https://cameroncounts.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/mathematics-and-logic/>
> Apologies: this will be a long post, and there will be more to come. But
> it may be useful to you if you are getting to grips with logic: I have
> tried to keep the overall picture in view.
>
ot;a car has one battery" and "you can see the car but it is
> in space which is not the same thing as you" and "if you turn around
> to look at the battery the car is still there" and all such details
> which lead to an understanding. But understanding is an incredibly
gt;>Is it possible that AGI is an outcome, an act of becoming, and not a
>>>> discrete objective at all?
>
> Rob
>
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2018 5:20 PM
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] Discrete Methods
t that last
> sentence. How on earth could anyone automate that? But, more so, two
> distinct AGI's would always be different on that account.
>
> On 6/22/18, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote:
>> I need to start with something that is extremely simple and which will
>> produc
n do human beings discover all its learning by itself? That's a
> fallacy. An AGI platform also does not have to discover all of its learning
> by itself. It can be taught until such time it can learn how to organize
> resources in order to teach itself and learn via reflection.
>
>
oes. What it needs to become automated is the
> development of its own GUI, as translator.
> ____________________
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Saturday, 23 June 2018 3:55 PM
>
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] Discrete Methods are Not the Same as Logic
>
> I am
w.researchgate.net
>
> --
> *From:* Jim Bromer via AGI
> *Sent:* Monday, 25 June 2018 10:32 PM
>
> *To:* AGI
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Discrete Methods are Not the Same as Logic
>
> Please provide a link to the method you are talking about.
> J
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180613162613.htm
Jim Bromer
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Ta4e31e76a6fa8cc9-M3510c797ad9387dbc24f651c
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/grou
Effective world knowledge is based on practical advancements and most
practical advancements cannot be made in pure simulations (like those
that can overtake the advancements in the real world). Something like
a triple abstraction principle in mathematics including the
transformational algorithms t
resident within the
> context of reducing NP to P. Is it heuristic enough to flow through
> boundaries as if they do not exist?
>
> Rob
>
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Monday, 09 July 2018 10:54 AM
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] New
Consciousness computation (GI) is on the negentropic massive multi-partite
entanglement frontier of a spontaneous morphismic awareness complexity -
IOW on the edge of life’s consciousness based on manifestation of
inter/intra-agent entanglement (in DNA perhaps?).
Whoa! I'm roiling dude. I mean, l
I am definitely not understanding whatever it is you guys are saying. I am
not opposed to mystical discussions (theories that contain mysteries which
are not explainable using contemporary knowledge and which may turn out to
be wrong) but I always want to see how they relate to an AGI which might
The idea that an AGI program has to be able to 'grow' knowledge is not
conceptually radical but the use of the idea that a program might be
seeded with certain kinds of insights does make me think about the
problem in a slightly different way. By developing a program to work
along principles that a
to Find, Frame, Make and Share. This would denote
> another radical departure in current thinking (I did come across a similar
> approach recently).
>
> Rob
>
>
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2018 2:25 PM
>
ing, but rather the premise you proposed. At least I
> stated my argument why the notion (if you are ok with that term) is
> refutable. I forgot how sensitive you can be.
>
> So, instead of feeling slighted, why not expound on the subtleties I may have
> missed?
>
> Rob
> __
t; In the interest of transparency, I would encourage you to rather say what you
> want to say, or don't. Please be clear and defend your point. I would welcome
> the debate, but if you could not care to, then rather admit you are just
> trying to throw a spanner in the works of th
y, or don't. Please be clear and defend your point. I would welcome
> the debate, but if you could not care to, then rather admit you are just
> trying to throw a spanner in the works of this most-useful, constructive
> discussion.
>
> Rob
> __
The first stage of learning something new is mostly trial and error.
Of course you have to understand some prerequisites before you are
capable of learning something new. Simplification is useful at this
stage even though it might get in the way. Idealization is a method
which you can use to initia
learning.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:47 AM Stefan Reich via AGI
wrote:
>
> Is this relating to anything concrete? I'm having a hard time processing
> abstract essays like that...
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 17:42, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote:
>>
The problem has always been complexity. If that hadn't been a problem the
paths to achieve AI - even a general AI - would be so numerous that it
would just be a normal programming project. It might take 10 or 20 years to
fully develop the first good models. As far as Artificial Soul or
Artificial C
Conscious experience - the soul or whatever it is - is not relevant to
contemporary computer science. I do not agree with the dismissal of
that feeling of experience either. As I told Marvin Minsky I do agree
that whatever conscious experience is it probably has the potential to
be explained by sci
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/science/plants-consciousness-anesthesia.html?module=Promotron®ion=Body&action=click&pgtype=article
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:01 PM Jim Bromer wrote:
>
> Conscious experience - the soul or whatever it is - is not relevant to
> contemporary computer scie
If you want to talk about user experience then do so (as you just
did.) Do not conflate human experience with programming constructs and
then find a tangential argument to justify it.
Jim Bromer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From
I am not talking about growing knowledge from a domain base. I am
talking about growing knowledge from interactions with human users who
will provide the system with facts and relationships usually expressed
in a natural (but austere) form, which the program would then have to
integrate and explore
That is not quite true. Each game could be reduced to a conveniently
finite number of reactions and principles. So if someone wanted to
waste his time he could create a simple physics-like modelling program
that could learn to play the games. The complexities could be refined
or reduced to a relati
I already regret asking these questions, but do you truly (really -
honestly) believe that:
Conscious Experience or soul or Qualia or the experience of being (or
whatever you want to call it) does not actually exist (or occur)?
and/or
This experience (whatever you want to call it) can therefore occ
t is still just going to be a
simulation of mind.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:40 PM Steve Richfield via AGI
wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> There are several potential interpretations of this, with Rob's being but one
> (or just a few).
>
> Continuing...
> On 6:07PM,
intelligent action.
>
> I believe it’s possible, however. If it exists, it can be simulated.
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI
> wrote:
>
> I already regret asking these questions, but do you truly (really -
> ho
.
>
> Steve Richfield via AGI schrieb am Mi., 19. Sep. 2018
> 23:41:
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> There are several potential interpretations of this, with Rob's being but
>> one (or just a few).
>>
>> Continuing...
>> On 6:07PM, Tue, Sep 18, 2018 Jim
> There are several potential interpretations of this, with Rob's being but
> > one (or just a few).
> >
> > Continuing...
> > On 6:07PM, Tue, Sep 18, 2018 Jim Bromer via AGI
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I already regret asking these questions, but
se, IN ANY WAY, that they are... I am merely answering
> your question from my point of view, because it seems that you are interested
> in the data of others).
>
> -Bells
>
> ~
> Bells Hakala
> (617) 416-4142
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:07 PM Jim Br
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI
> >
> > What is qualia? How do I know if monkeys,
> > fish, insects, human embryos, robots, or thermostats have qualia and how
> > would they behave differently if they did or did not. What is the test?
That is an ontologically flawed question.
Jim Bromer
On Fri,
But you are still missing the definition of qualia. Wikipedia has a
thing on it and I am sure SEP does as well. Because there are reports
of subjective experience we know that we share something of the nature
of experience. Common sense can tell us that computers do not. How do
we know that compute
Let's say that someone says that quantum effects can explain qualia. I
might respond by saying that sort of speculation is not related to
contemporary computer science. Then I get the reply, What do you
mean?!! Computers are used heavily in quantum science Yes, so
computers are used to make qua
Sorry for posting so many comments.
The question, 'What is the test for qualia so that I can know it is
real' is ontologically flawed because the mystery of qualia is a
profound mystery. There is no simple test for it because we only know
about it through the reports of subjective experience. The q
Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 10:03 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> >
> > So John's attempt to create a definition of compression of something
> > complicated so that it can be communicated might be the start of the
>
to believing there is
> something magical and mysterious about it.
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 8:44 AM Jim Bromer via AGI
> wrote:
>
>> There is a distinction between the qualia of human experience and the
>> consciousness of what the mind is presenting. If you deny that yo
with it. My
>> definition is qualia is what perception feels like. Perception and feelings
>> are both computable. But the feelings condition you to believing there is
>> something magical and mysterious about it.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 8:44 AM Jim Bromer via AGI
&
I tried to look at my original posts about a rational test of
religious belief and my belief that I would find a way to improve on
logical satisfiability to try to see if I actually claimed that I
would find a polynomial time solution the first time I posted on the
issue. I could not go back that f
nothing about. Yet, we should at least try to
>> do that as well.
>>
>> Therefore, to explain is to know?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
>> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2018 6:12 PM
>> To: AGI
>> Subject: Re
passionate enough to
> take the time to do the semantic work. Or is it symbolic of another
> problem? I think it's a very brave thing to talk publicly about a subject
> we all agree we seemingly know almost nothing about. Yet, we should at
> least try to do that as well.
>
&
e trying to do that?
>>
>> Maybe it's a case of no one really being curious and passionate enough to
>> take the time to do the semantic work. Or is it symbolic of another
>> problem? I think it's a very brave thing to talk publicly about a subject
>> we
John,
There are aspects of the intelligent understanding of the world
(universe of things and ideas) that can be modelled and simulated. I
think this is computable in an AI program except the problem of
complexity would slow the modelling down so much that it would not be
effective enough (at this
Matt's response - like an adolescent's flip remark - is evidence of
the kind of denial that I mentioned.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
>
> I wrote a simple reinforcement learner which includes the line of code:
>
> printf("Ouch!\n");
>
> So I don't see co
quot;flash of light", as the moment of knowing.
> Esoterically, I'd say qualia is that absolute moment when individual,
> consciousnessintelligence potential is realized.
>
> Computational models already exist for most of the components and
> functionality I mentioned. As such, I thin
I apologize for making personal attacks. I did not mean my comments to
come out that way. I think there are a number of native American
tribes who believe that the spirit imbues everything and every where.
I do not actually disagree with that. However, that does not mean that
the spirit of a rock m
well served by imagining some other kind of material
interrelations than by inducting ideas about conjectures of other
mysteries in physics and trying to smush it into this question.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:02 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: J
everything.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:14 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> >
> > I want to try to have a more positive attitude about other people's crackpot
> > ideas. It is taking me a few days to u
John,
Can you map something like multipartite entanglement to something more
viable in contemporary computer programming? I mean something simple enough
that even I (and some of the other guys in this group) could understand? Or
is there no possible model that could be composed from contemporary
co
A good goal for a next generation compression system is to allow
functional transformations to operate on some compressed data without
needing to decompress it first. (I forgot what this is called but
there is a Wikipedia entry on something s8milar in cryptography.)
This is how multiplication works
internals of the model...
>>
>> So I think actually "operating on compressed versions of data" is
>> roughly equivalent to "producing highly accurate probabilistic models
>> that have transparent internal semantics"
>>
>> Which is important f
represented as
> >> (say) a probabilistic logic program, then it's easier to manipulate
> >> the internals of the model...
> >>
> >> So I think actually "operating on compressed versions of data" is
> >> roughly equivalent to "produc
I would like to talk about this stuff but I am so busy doing other
things right now that it is difficult for me to get into it.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:48 PM A.T. Murray via AGI wrote:
>
> Coding something like http://ai.neocities.org/FirstWorkingAGI.html almost
> every day, I often
But Shannon Entropy is not
the only possible *relative* definition in a system. And Shannon
signal processing is not the only interesting system that might be
referenced in a discussion like this.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:04 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
>
read your latest message so it will
take me some time to respond to it.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:33 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> >
> > And if the concept of randomness is called into question then
> > how
e
> start looking for it.
> John: I have to take some time to read your latest message so it will
> take me some time to respond to it.
> Jim Bromer
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:33 AM John Rose wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jim Bromer via A
I think Matt's last post is wrong about the idea of the randomness of
a string but I am really supposed to be working.
I think John's abstract example would constitute an example of what I
was thinking about but there are also other exemplars, both abstract
and explicit.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Oct 11,
To heck with work! A couple of beers makes it all ok. (Note to
employer: I am only kidding about that of course.)
As I said, I think the definition of randomness within a constrained
system makes a lot more sense then the alternative. However, a
definition must then be relative. Perhaps Matt meant
Matt said, "A string is random if there is no shorter description of
the string."
That is a conjecture, or a hypothesis.
Matt said, "... but there is no general algorithm to distinguish them in any
language.
"Encrypted data appears random if you don't know the key. But it is not
random because it
stem. How do you do that?
>>
>> Still, easy to translate across boundaries as well.
>>
>> *One's shoe may be another's steak. That is the nature of true relativity in
>> motion.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> From: Jim Bromer via
to open the
> door for access to the magical 256 NP-Complete findings.
>
> Rob
>
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2018 11:27 AM
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] Compressed Algorithms that can work on compressed data.
>
> The idea of
's version of AGI Symbolism Management?"
> >
> > As a case in point, what you thus might call 'Symbolism Management', I
> > might just call 'Illusion Management'.
> >
> > In my mind, my system would potentially cope with up to 16, real-ti
I lack the programming skills. According to my version, this is one of
> the easier components of an AGI services platform. The theory is mature
> enough to enable this.
>
> ________________
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2018 8:59 PM
>
heory published, but the majority of it in private R&D, in preparation for a
> proof-of-concept prototype.
>
> Rob
> ________________
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2018 4:12 PM
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] Compressed Algorithms tha
I was just reading the Wikipedia entry for "deconstruction", the
post-modern theory of Derrida's, and I started thinking about my view
that all representations are 'text' on a computer because they are all
represented as data. I had mentioned that at an art demonstration and
I started thinking that
8 6:14 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote:
>
> ... thinking
> of how abstraction might be used to produce recognition. First of all,
> a useful abstraction might rely on an algorithm not only to get it out
> of a data (or a 'text') but the data or some characteristic of the
>
Alan said:
Capture a second frame at a time when the input has changed in some way.
Take a second frame and then subtract the first frame. Take this
difference as a new thing to play with and see if it can be used to
compress the first frame. Then take the thirdframe, attempt to compress
it, then s
egelian type of
> interpretation, which basically looks at reality in terms of
> determinate features held in contrast to "imaginary" features. The
> understanding integrates this.
>
> Mike
>
> On 10/30/18, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote:
> > Alan said:
> > Ca
I would like to discover a development path that would be simple. If
an effective method of abstraction could be developed then artificial
abstractions could be used to create, test, and develop an agi program
on the fly using high-level concepts. The problem is that the process
of abstracting is n
72 matches
Mail list logo
