On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
You start v. constructively thinking how to test the non-programmed
nature of - or simply record - the actual writing of programs, and
then IMO fail to keep going.
You could trace their keyboard presses back to the cerebellum and motor
On Friday 05 September 2008, William Pearson wrote:
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers
are guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Were your computer like a human mind, it would have been able to say
(as you/we all do) - well if that part of the problem is going to be
difficult, I'll ignore it or.. I'll just make up an answer... or
by God I'll keep trying other ways until
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
fundamental programming problem, right?) A creative free machine,
like a human, really can follow any of what may be a vast range of
routes - and you really can't predict what it will do or, at a basic
level, be surprised by it.
What do you say
On Saturday 06 September 2008, William Pearson wrote:
I'm very interested in computers that self-maintain, that is reduce
(or eliminate) the need for a human to be in the loop or know much
about the internal workings of the computer. However it doesn't need
a vastly different computing
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Our unreliabilty is the negative flip-side of our positive ability
to stop an activity at any point, incl. the beginning and completely
change tack/ course or whole approach, incl. the task itself, and
even completely contradict ourself.
But
On Friday 05 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
So, Mike, is free will:
1) an illusion based on some kind of unpredictable, complex but
*deterministic* interaction of physical components 2) the result of
probabilistic physics - a *non-deterministic* interaction described
by something like
Hey Bryan,
To me, this is indistinguishable from the 1st option I laid out. Deterministic
but impossible to predict.
Terren
--- On Sun, 9/7/08, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MT:By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are
guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
Will:If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even if it could be made so, computer systems
Will,
Yes, humans are manifestly a RADICALLY different machine paradigm- if you
care to stand back and look at the big picture.
Employ a machine of any kind and in general, you know what you're getting -
some glitches (esp. with complex programs) etc sure - but basically, in
general, it
Sorry - para Our unreliability .. should have contined..
Our unreliabilty is the negative flip-side of our positive ability to stop
an activity at any point, incl. the beginning and completely change tack/
course or whole approach, incl. the task itself, and even completely
contradict
2008/9/6 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Will,
Yes, humans are manifestly a RADICALLY different machine paradigm- if you
care to stand back and look at the big picture.
Employ a machine of any kind and in general, you know what you're getting -
some glitches (esp. with complex programs) etc
It has been explained many times to Tintner that even though computer hardware
works with a particular set of primitive operations running in sequence, a
hardwired set of primitive logical operations operating in sequence is NOT the
theory of intelligence that any AGI researchers are proposing
DZ:AGI researchers do not think of intelligence as what you think of as a
computer program -- some rigid sequence of logical operations programmed by a
designer to mimic intelligent behavior.
1. Sequence/Structure. The concept I've been using is not that a program is a
sequence of operations
OK, I'll bite: what's nondeterministic programming if not a contradiction?
Again - v. briefly - it's a reality - nondeterministic programming is a
reality, so there's no material, mechanistic, software problem in getting a
machine to decide either way. The only problem is a logical one of
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are
guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even if it could be made so, computer systems would not
MT:By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are
guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
Will:If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even if it could be made so, computer systems would not
always want to do so.
Will,
That's
Mike,
Will's objection is not quite so easily dismissed. You need to argue
that there is an alternative, not just that Will's is more of the
same.
--Abram
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MT:By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers
Mike,
The philosophical paradigm I'm assuming is that the only two
alternatives are deterministic and random. Either the next state is
completely determined by the last, or it is only probabilistically
determined.
Deterministic does not mean computable, since physical processes can
be totally
Abram,
I don't understand why.how I need to argue an alternative - please explain.
If it helps, a deterministic, programmed machine can, at any given point,
only follow one route through a given territory or problem space or maze -
even if surprising *appearing* to halt/deviate from the
Hi Mike, comments below...
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again - v. briefly - it's a reality - nondeterministic
programming is a
reality, so there's no material, mechanistic, software
problem in getting a
machine to decide either way.
This is inherently
Mike,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abram,
I don't understand why.how I need to argue an alternative - please explain.
I am not sure what to say, but here is my view of the situation. You
are claiming that there is a broad range of things that
2008/9/4 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Terren,
If you think it's all been said, please point me to the philosophy of AI
that includes it.
A programmed machine is an organized structure. A keyboard (and indeed a
computer with keyboard) are something very different - there is no
Will:You can't create a program out of thin air. So you have to have some
sort of program to start with
Not out of thin air.Out of a general instruction and desire[s]/emotion[s].
Write me a program that will contradict every statement made to it. Write
me a single program that will allow me to
Programming definitely feels like an art to me - I get the same feelings as
when I am painting. I always wondered why.
On the phylosophical side in general technology is the ability of humans to
adapt the environment to themselves instead of the opposite - adapting to
the environment. The
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terren,
If you think it's all been said, please point me to the philosophy of AI
that includes it.
I believe what you are suggesting is best understood as an interaction machine.
General references:
Abram,
Thanks for reply. But I don't understand what you see as the connection. An
interaction machine from my brief googling is one which has physical organs.
Any factory machine can be thought of as having organs. What I am trying to
forge is a new paradigm of a creative, free machine as
Mike,
Thanks for the reference to Dennis Noble, he sounds very interesting and his
views on Systems Biology as expressed on his Wikipedia page are perfectly in
line with my own thoughts and biases.
I agree in spirit with your basic criticisms regarding current AI and
creativity. However, it
Mike,
The reason I decided that what you are arguing for is essentially an
interactive model is this quote:
But that is obviously only the half of it.Computers are obviously
much more than that - and Turing machines. You just have to look at
them. It's staring you in the face. There's something
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And as a matter of scientific, historical fact, computers are first
and foremost keyboards - i.e.devices for CREATING programs on
keyboards, - and only then following them. [Remember how AI gets
almost everything about intelligence back to
Abram,
Thanks. V. helpful and interesting. Yes, on further examination, these
interactionist guys seem, as you say, to be trying to take into account the
embeddedness of the computer.
But no, there's still a huge divide between them and me. I would liken them
in the context of this
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
Thus is creativity possible while preserving determinism. Of course,
you still need to have an explanation for how creativity emerges in
either case, but in contrast to what you said before, some AI folks
have indeed worked on this issue.
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And what I am asserting is a paradigm of a creative machine, which
starts as, and is, NON-algorithmic and UNstructured in all its
activities, albeit that it acquires and creates a multitude of
algorithms, or
routines/structures, for *parts*
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And how to produce creativity is the central problem of AGI -
completely unsolved. So maybe a new approach/paradigm is worth at
least considering rather than more of the same? I'm not aware of a
single idea from any AGI-er past or present
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Do you honestly think that you write programs in a programmed way?
That it's not an *art* pace Matt, full of hesitation, halts,
meandering, twists and turns, dead ends, detours etc? If you have
to have some sort of program to start with, how
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Valentina Poletti wrote:
When we want to step further and create an AGI I think we want to
externalize the very ability to create technology - we want the
environment to start adapting to us by itself, spontaneously by
gaining our goals.
There is a sense of
Terren: I agree in spirit with your basic criticisms regarding current AI
and creativity. However, it must be pointed out that if you abandon
determinism, you find yourself in the world of dualism, or worse.
Nah. One word (though it would take too long here to explain) ;
nondeterministic
Bryan,
You start v. constructively thinking how to test the non-programmed nature
of - or simply record - the actual writing of programs, and then IMO fail
to keep going.
There have to be endless more precise ways than trying to look at their
brain.
Verbal protocols.
Ask them to use the
OK, I'll bite: what's nondeterministic programming if not a contradiction?
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nah. One word (though it would take too long here to
explain) ;
nondeterministic programming.
---
agi
Mike,
In that case I do not see how your view differs from simplistic
dualism, as Terren cautioned. If your goal is to make a creativity
machine, in what sense would the machine be non-algorithmic? Physical
random processes?
--Abram
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike,
There's nothing particularly creative about keyboards. The creativity comes
from what uses the keyboard. Maybe that was your point, but if so the
digression about a keyboard is just confusing.
In terms of a metaphor, I'm not sure I understand your point about
organizers. It seems to me
Terren,
If you think it's all been said, please point me to the philosophy of AI
that includes it.
A programmed machine is an organized structure. A keyboard (and indeed a
computer with keyboard) are something very different - there is no
organization to those 26 letters etc. They can be
42 matches
Mail list logo
