RE: [agi] Pretty worldchanging
You have to give toast though to Net entities like Wikipedia, I'd dare say one of humankind's greatest achievements. Then eventually over a few years it'll be available as a plug-in, as a virtual trepan thus reducing the effort of subsuming all that. And then maybe structural intelligence add-ins so that abstract concepts need not be learned by medieval rote conditioning. These humanity features are not far off. So instead of a $35 laptop a fifty cent liqua chip could be injected as a prole inoculation/augmentation. John From: Boris Kazachenko [mailto:bori...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:50 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Pretty worldchanging Maybe there are some students on this email list, who are wading through all the BS and learning something about AGI, by following links and reading papers mentioned here, etc. Without the Net, how would these students learn about AGI, in practice? Such education would be far harder to come by and less effective without the Net. That's world-changing... ;-) ... The Net saves time. Back in the day, one could spend a lifetime sifting through paper in the library, or traveling the world to meet authorities. Now you do some googling, realize that no one has a clue, go on to do some real work on your own. That's if you have the guts, of course. intelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm http://ntelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: RE: [agi] Pretty worldchanging
Wikipedia doesn't allow original research Understandable, but that excludes people who don't have time to waste on getting established. Abstract concepts can't be learned by conditioning, only the practically useful ones. Structural intelligence add-ins? Those will obsolete your brain, no need to add to it. http://knol.google.com/k/intelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm# You have to give toast though to Net entities like Wikipedia, I'd dare say one of humankind's greatest achievements. Then eventually over a few years it'll be available as a plug-in, as a virtual trepan thus reducing the effort of subsuming all that. And then maybe structural intelligence add-ins so that abstract concepts need not be learned by medieval rote conditioning. These humanity features are not far off. So instead of a $35 laptop a fifty cent liqua chip could be injected as a prole inoculation/augmentation. John From: Boris Kazachenko [mailto:bori...@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:50 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Pretty worldchanging Maybe there are some students on this email list, who are wading through all the BS and learning something about AGI, by following links and reading papers mentioned here, etc. Without the Net, how would these students learn about AGI, in practice? Such education would be far harder to come by and less effective without the Net. That's world-changing... ;-) ... The Net saves time. Back in the day, one could spend a lifetime sifting through paper in the library, or traveling the world to meet authorities. Now you do some googling, realize that no one has a clue, go on to do some real work on your own. That's if you have the guts, of course. intelligence-as-a-cognitive-algorithm --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Clues to the Mind: Illusions / Vision
Here is an example of superimposed images where you have to have a predisposed perception - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1m0kCdC7co John From: deepakjnath [mailto:deepakjn...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:03 PM To: agi Subject: [agi] Clues to the Mind: Illusions / Vision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clofeature=player_embedded feature=player_embedded What we see is not really what you see. Its what you see and what you know you are seeing. The brain superimposes the predicted images to the viewed image to actually have a perception of image. cheers, Deepak agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I believe that trans-infinite would mean that there is no recursively enumerable algorithm that could 'reach' every possible item in the trans-infinite group. Since each program in Solomonoff Induction, written for a Universal Turing Machine could be written on a single role of tape, that means that every possible combination of programs could also be written on the tape. They would therefore be recursively enumerable just as they could be enumerated on a one to one basis with aleph null (counting numbers). But, unfortunately for my criticism, there are algorithms that could reach any finite combination of things which means that even though you could not determine the ordering of programs that would be necessary to show that the probabilities of each string approach a limit, it would be possible to write an algorithm that could show trends, given infinite resources. This doesn't mean that the probabilities would approach the limit, it just means that if they did, there would be an infinite algorithm that could make the best determination given the information that the programs had already produced. This would be a necessary step of a theoretical (but still non-constructivist) proof. So I can't prove that Solomonoff Induction is inherently trans-infinite. I am going to take a few weeks to see if I can determine if the idea of Solomonoff Induction makes hypothetical sense to me. Jim Bromer On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Jim Bromer wrote: Solomonoff Induction may require a trans-infinite level of complexity just to run each program. Trans-infinite is not a mathematically defined term as far as I can tell. Maybe you mean larger than infinity, as in the infinite set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of natural numbers (which is true). But it is not true that Solomonoff induction requires more than aleph-null operations. (Aleph-null is the size of the set of natural numbers, the smallest infinity). An exact calculation requires that you test aleph-null programs for aleph-null time steps each. There are aleph-null programs because each program is a finite length string, and there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the set of finite strings and N, the set of natural numbers. Also, each program requires aleph-null computation in the case that it runs forever, because each step in the infinite computation can be numbered 1, 2, 3... However, the total amount of computation is still aleph-null because each step of each program can be described by an ordered pair (m,n) in N^2, meaning the n'th step of the m'th program, where m and n are natural numbers. The cardinality of N^2 is the same as the cardinality of N because there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the sets. You can order the ordered pairs as (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (1,3), (2,2), (3,1), (1,4), (2,3), (3,2), (4,1), (1,5), etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set#More_formal_introduction Furthermore you may approximate Solomonoff induction to any desired precision with finite computation. Simply interleave the execution of all programs as indicated in the ordering of ordered pairs that I just gave, where the programs are ordered from shortest to longest. Take the shortest program found so far that outputs your string, x. It is guaranteed that this algorithm will approach and eventually find the shortest program that outputs x given sufficient time, because this program exists and it halts. In case you are wondering how Solomonoff induction is not computable, the problem is that after this algorithm finds the true shortest program that outputs x, it will keep running forever and you might still be wondering if a shorter program is forthcoming. In general you won't know. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, July 24, 2010 3:59:18 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction Solomonoff Induction may require a trans-infinite level of complexity just to run each program. Suppose each program is iterated through the enumeration of its instructions. Then, not only do the infinity of possible programs need to be run, many combinations of the infinite programs from each simulated Turing Machine also have to be tried. All the possible combinations of (accepted) programs, one from any two or more of the (accepted) programs produced by each simulated Turing Machine, have to be tried. Although these combinations of programs from each of the simulated Turing Machine may not all be unique, they all have to be tried. Since each simulated Turing Machine would produce infinite programs, I am pretty sure that this means that Solmonoff Induction is, *by definition,*trans-infinite. Jim Bromer On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I have to retract my
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
No, I might have been wrong about the feasibility of writing an algorithm that can produce all the possible combinations of items when I wrote my last message. It is because the word combination is associated with more than one mathematical method. I am skeptical of the possibility that there is a re algorithm that can write out every possible combination of items taken from more than one group of *types* when strings of infinite length are possible. So yes, I may have proved that there is no re algorithm, even if given infinite resources, that can order the computation of Solomonoff Induction in such a way to show that the probability (or probabilities) tend toward a limit. If my theory is correct, and right now I would say that there is a real chance that it is, I have proved that Solmonoff Induction is theoretically infeasible, illogical and therefore refuted. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that trans-infinite would mean that there is no recursively enumerable algorithm that could 'reach' every possible item in the trans-infinite group. Since each program in Solomonoff Induction, written for a Universal Turing Machine could be written on a single role of tape, that means that every possible combination of programs could also be written on the tape. They would therefore be recursively enumerable just as they could be enumerated on a one to one basis with aleph null (counting numbers). But, unfortunately for my criticism, there are algorithms that could reach any finite combination of things which means that even though you could not determine the ordering of programs that would be necessary to show that the probabilities of each string approach a limit, it would be possible to write an algorithm that could show trends, given infinite resources. This doesn't mean that the probabilities would approach the limit, it just means that if they did, there would be an infinite algorithm that could make the best determination given the information that the programs had already produced. This would be a necessary step of a theoretical (but still non-constructivist) proof. So I can't prove that Solomonoff Induction is inherently trans-infinite. I am going to take a few weeks to see if I can determine if the idea of Solomonoff Induction makes hypothetical sense to me. Jim Bromer On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: Jim Bromer wrote: Solomonoff Induction may require a trans-infinite level of complexity just to run each program. Trans-infinite is not a mathematically defined term as far as I can tell. Maybe you mean larger than infinity, as in the infinite set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of natural numbers (which is true). But it is not true that Solomonoff induction requires more than aleph-null operations. (Aleph-null is the size of the set of natural numbers, the smallest infinity). An exact calculation requires that you test aleph-null programs for aleph-null time steps each. There are aleph-null programs because each program is a finite length string, and there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the set of finite strings and N, the set of natural numbers. Also, each program requires aleph-null computation in the case that it runs forever, because each step in the infinite computation can be numbered 1, 2, 3... However, the total amount of computation is still aleph-null because each step of each program can be described by an ordered pair (m,n) in N^2, meaning the n'th step of the m'th program, where m and n are natural numbers. The cardinality of N^2 is the same as the cardinality of N because there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the sets. You can order the ordered pairs as (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (1,3), (2,2), (3,1), (1,4), (2,3), (3,2), (4,1), (1,5), etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set#More_formal_introduction Furthermore you may approximate Solomonoff induction to any desired precision with finite computation. Simply interleave the execution of all programs as indicated in the ordering of ordered pairs that I just gave, where the programs are ordered from shortest to longest. Take the shortest program found so far that outputs your string, x. It is guaranteed that this algorithm will approach and eventually find the shortest program that outputs x given sufficient time, because this program exists and it halts. In case you are wondering how Solomonoff induction is not computable, the problem is that after this algorithm finds the true shortest program that outputs x, it will keep running forever and you might still be wondering if a shorter program is forthcoming. In general you won't know. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Sat, July 24, 2010 3:59:18 PM *Subject:*
[agi] The Math Behind Creativity
I came across this, thinking it was going to be an example of maths fantasy, but actually it has a rather nice idea about the mathematics of creativity. The Math Behind Creativity By Chuck Scott on June 15, 2010 The Science of Creativity is based on the following mathematical formula for Creativity: In other words, Creativity is equal to infinity minus the area of a defined circle of what's working. Note: is the geometric formula for calculating the area of a circle; where is 3.142 rounded to the nearest thousandth, and R is a circle's radius (the length from a circle's center to edge). ** Simply, it's saying - that for every problem, and ultimately that's not just creative but rational problems, there's a definable space of options - the spaces you guys work with in your programs - wh. may work, if the problem is rational, but normally don't if it's creative. And beyond that space is the undefined space of creativity, wh. encompasses the entire world in an infinity of combinations. (Or all the fabulous multiverse[s] of Ben's mind). Creative ideas - and that can be small everyday ideas as well as large cultural ones - can come from anywhere in, and any combinations of, the entire world (incl butterflies in Brazil and caterpillars in Katmandu - QED I just drew that last phrase off the cuff from that vast world). Creative thinking - and that incl. the thinking of all humans from children on - is what in the world ? thinking - that can and does draw upon the infinite resources of the world. What in the world is he on about? Where in the world will I find s.o. who..? What in the world could be of help here? And that is another way of highlighting the absurdity of current approaches to AGI - that would seek to encompass the entire world of creative ideas/options in the infinitesimal spaces/options of programs. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com math_994_a9533b31457bd21311d15e42a60f9153.pngmath_994_d895701496b1057f4cbe3c7c38db0d30.pngmath_994.5_8edb2cf68079344a2edd739531259f6c.png
Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
David Jones wrote: Arthur, Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get bored of maintaining or updating it very quickly :) Dave On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote: The Web site of David Jones at http://practicalai.org is quite impressive to me as a kindred spirit building AGI. (Just today I have been coding MindForth AGI :-) For his Practical AI Challenge or similar ventures, I would hope that David Jones is open to the idea of aggregating or archiving representative AI samples from such sources as - TexAI; - OpenCog; - Mentifex AI; - etc.; so that visitors to PracticalAI may gain an overview of what is happening in our field. Arthur -- http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt Just today, a few minutes ago, I updated the mindforth.txt AI souce code listed above. In the PracticalAi aggregates, you might consider listing Mentifex AI with copies of the above two AI source code pages, and with links to the original scn.org URL's, where visitors to PracticalAi could look for any more recent updates that you had not gotten around to transferring from scn.org to PracticalAi. In that way, theses releases of Mentifex free AI source code would have a more robust Web presence (SCN often goes down) and I could link to PracticalAi for the aggregates and other features of PracticalAI. Thanks. Arthur T. Murray --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Clues to the Mind: What do you think is the reason for selective attention
I found proof of my interpretation in the following paper also. It concludes that we can only keep track of 3 or 4 objects in detail at a time.(something like that) http://www.pni.princeton.edu/conte/pdfs/project2/Proj2Pub8anne.pdf It says: For explicit visual working memory, object tokens are stored in a limited capacity, vulnerable store that maintains the bindings of features for just 2 to 4 objects. Attention is required to sustain the memories. Dave On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:00 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Dave, its very interesting. This gives us more clues in to how the brain compresses and uses the relevant information while neglecting the irrelevant information. But as Anast has demonstrated, the brain does need priming inorder to decide what is relevant and irrelevant. :) Cheers, Deepak On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.comwrote: I also wanted to say that it is agi related because this may be the way that the brain deals with ambiguity in the real world. It ignores many things if it can use expectations to constrain possibilities. It is an important way in which the brain tracks objects and identifies them without analyzing all of an objects features before matching over the whole image. On Jul 24, 2010 7:53 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Deepak, this is AGI related. This week I finally found a cool body of research that I previously had no knowledge of. This research area is in psychology, which is probably why I missed it the first time. It has to do with human perception, object files, how we keep track of object, individuate them, match them (the correspondence problem), etc. And I found the perfect article just now for you Deepak: http://www.duke.edu/~mitroff/papers/SimonsMitroff_01.pdfhttp://www.duke.edu/%7Emitroff/papers/SimonsMitroff_01.pdf This article mentions why the brain does not notice things. And I just realized as I was reading it why we don't see the gorilla or other unexpected changes. The reason is this: We have a limited amount of processing power that we can apply to visual tracking and analysis. So, in attention demanding situations such as these, we assign our processing resources to only track the things we are interested in. In fact, we probably do this all the time, but it is only when we need a lot of attention to be applied to a few objects do we notice that we don't see some unexpected events. So, our brain knows where to expect the ball next and our visual processing is very busy tracking the ball and then seeing who is throwing it. As a result, it is unable to also process the movement of other objects. If the unexpected event is drastic enough, it will get our attention. But since some of the people are in black, our brain probably thinks it is just a person in black and doesn't consider it an event that is worthy of interrupting our intense tracking. Dave On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis sokratis.dk@ gmail.com wrote: On Sat,... *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Don't fret; your main site's got good uptime. http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html -Chris On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote: David Jones wrote: Arthur, Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get bored of maintaining or updating it very quickly :) Dave On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote: The Web site of David Jones at http://practicalai.org is quite impressive to me as a kindred spirit building AGI. (Just today I have been coding MindForth AGI :-) For his Practical AI Challenge or similar ventures, I would hope that David Jones is open to the idea of aggregating or archiving representative AI samples from such sources as - TexAI; - OpenCog; - Mentifex AI; - etc.; so that visitors to PracticalAI may gain an overview of what is happening in our field. Arthur -- http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.htmlhttp://www.scn.org/%7Ementifex/AiMind.html http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txthttp://www.scn.org/%7Ementifex/mindforth.txt Just today, a few minutes ago, I updated the mindforth.txt AI souce code listed above. In the PracticalAi aggregates, you might consider listing Mentifex AI with copies of the above two AI source code pages, and with links to the original scn.org URL's, where visitors to PracticalAi could look for any more recent updates that you had not gotten around to transferring from scn.org to PracticalAi. In that way, theses releases of Mentifex free AI source code would have a more robust Web presence (SCN often goes down) and I could link to PracticalAi for the aggregates and other features of PracticalAI. Thanks. Arthur T. Murray --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I got confused with the two kinds of combinations that I was thinking about. Sorry. However, while the reordering of the partial accumulation of a finite number of probabilities, where each probability is taken just once, can be done with a re algorithm, there is no re algorithm that can consider all possible combinations for an infinite set of probabilities. I believe that this means that the probability of a particular string cannot be proven to attain a stable value using general mathematical methods but that the partial ordering of probabilities after any finite programs had been run can be made, both with actual computed values and through the use of an a priori methods made with general mathematical methods - if someone (like a twenty second century AI program) was capable of dealing with the extraordinary complexity of the problem. So I haven't proven that there is a theoretical disconnect between the desired function and the method. Right now, no one has, as far as I can tell, been able to prove that the method would actually produce the desired function for all cases, but I haven't been able to sketch a proof that the claimed relation between the method and the desired function is completely unsound. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: No, I might have been wrong about the feasibility of writing an algorithm that can produce all the possible combinations of items when I wrote my last message. It is because the word combination is associated with more than one mathematical method. I am skeptical of the possibility that there is a re algorithm that can write out every possible combination of items taken from more than one group of *types* when strings of infinite length are possible. So yes, I may have proved that there is no re algorithm, even if given infinite resources, that can order the computation of Solomonoff Induction in such a way to show that the probability (or probabilities) tend toward a limit. If my theory is correct, and right now I would say that there is a real chance that it is, I have proved that Solmonoff Induction is theoretically infeasible, illogical and therefore refuted. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
Not sure how that is useful, or even how it relates to creativity if
considered as an informal description?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
I came across this, thinking it was going to be an example of maths
fantasy, but actually it has a rather nice idea about the mathematics of
creativity.
The Math Behind Creativity http://www.alwayscreative.com/math/
By Chuck Scott http://www.alwayscreative.com/author/admin/ on June 15,
2010
The Science of Creativity is based on the following mathematical formula
for Creativity:
[image: C = {infty} - {pi}R^2]
In other words, Creativity is equal to infinity minus the area of a defined
circle of what’s working.
Note: [image: {pi}R^2] is the geometric formula for calculating the area
of a circle; where [image: pi] is 3.142 rounded to the nearest thousandth,
and R is a circle’s radius (the length from a circle’s center to edge).
**
Simply, it's saying - that for every problem, and ultimately that's not
just creative but rational problems, there's a definable space of options -
the spaces you guys work with in your programs - wh. may work, if the
problem is rational, but normally don't if it's creative. And beyond that
space is the undefined space of creativity, wh. encompasses the entire world
in an infinity of combinations. (Or all the fabulous multiverse[s] of Ben's
mind). Creative ideas - and that can be small everyday ideas as well as
large cultural ones - can come from anywhere in, and any combinations of,
the entire world (incl butterflies in Brazil and caterpillars in Katmandu -
QED I just drew that last phrase off the cuff from that vast world).
Creative thinking - and that incl. the thinking of all humans from children
on - is what in the world ? thinking - that can and does draw upon the
infinite resources of the world. What in the world is he on about? Where
in the world will I find s.o. who..? What in the world could be of help
here?
And that is another way of highlighting the absurdity of current approaches
to AGI - that would seek to encompass the entire world of creative
ideas/options in the infinitesimal spaces/options of programs.
*agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription
http://www.listbox.com
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
math_994_a9533b31457bd21311d15e42a60f9153.pngmath_994_d895701496b1057f4cbe3c7c38db0d30.pngmath_994.5_8edb2cf68079344a2edd739531259f6c.png
Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
I think it's v. useful - although I was really extending his idea.
Correct me - but almost no matter what you guys do, (or anyone in AI does) ,
you think in terms of spaces, or frames. Spaces of options. Whether you're
doing logic, maths, or programs, spaces in one form or other are fundamental.
But you won't find anyone - or show me to the contrary - applying spaces to
creative problems (or AGI problems). T
And what's useful IMO is the idea of **trying** to encompass the space of
creative options - the options for any creative problem [wh can be as simple
or complex as what shall we have to eat tonight? or how do we reform the
banks? or what do you think of the state of AGI? ].
It's only when you **try** to formalise creativity , that you realise it can't
be done in any practical, programmable way - or formal way. You can only do it
conceptually. Informally.
The options are infinite, or, at any rate, practically endless. - and
infinite not just in number, but in *diversity*, in endlessly proliferating
*domains* and categories extending right across the world.
**And this is the case for every creative problem - every AGI problem** (one
reason why you won't find anyone in the field of AGI, actually doing AGI, only
narrow AI gestures at the goal).
It's only when you attempt - and fail - to formalise the space of creativity,
that the meaning of there are infinite creative options really comes home.
And you should be able to start to see why narrow AI and AGI are fundamentally
opposite affairs - thinking in closed spaces vs thinking in open worlds.
{It is fundamental BTW to the method of rationality - and rationalisation -
epitomised in current programming - to create and think in a closed space of
options, wh. is always artificial in nature].
From: rob levy
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:16 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
Not sure how that is useful, or even how it relates to creativity if considered
as an informal description?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I came across this, thinking it was going to be an example of maths fantasy,
but actually it has a rather nice idea about the mathematics of creativity.
The Math Behind Creativity
By Chuck Scott on June 15, 2010
The Science of Creativity is based on the following mathematical formula for
Creativity:
In other words, Creativity is equal to infinity minus the area of a defined
circle of what’s working.
Note: is the geometric formula for calculating the area of a circle; where
is 3.142 rounded to the nearest thousandth, and R is a circle’s radius (the
length from a circle’s center to edge).
**
Simply, it's saying - that for every problem, and ultimately that's not just
creative but rational problems, there's a definable space of options - the
spaces you guys work with in your programs - wh. may work, if the problem is
rational, but normally don't if it's creative. And beyond that space is the
undefined space of creativity, wh. encompasses the entire world in an infinity
of combinations. (Or all the fabulous multiverse[s] of Ben's mind). Creative
ideas - and that can be small everyday ideas as well as large cultural ones -
can come from anywhere in, and any combinations of, the entire world (incl
butterflies in Brazil and caterpillars in Katmandu - QED I just drew that last
phrase off the cuff from that vast world). Creative thinking - and that incl.
the thinking of all humans from children on - is what in the world ?
thinking - that can and does draw upon the infinite resources of the world.
What in the world is he on about? Where in the world will I find s.o.
who..? What in the world could be of help here?
And that is another way of highlighting the absurdity of current approaches
to AGI - that would seek to encompass the entire world of creative
ideas/options in the infinitesimal spaces/options of programs.
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: I think it's v. useful - although I was really extending his idea. Correct me - but almost no matter what you guys do, (or anyone in AI does) , you think in terms of spaces, or frames. Spaces of options. Whether you're doing logic, maths, or programs, spaces in one form or other are fundamental. But you won't find anyone - or show me to the contrary - applying spaces to creative problems (or AGI problems). T I guess we may somehow be familiar with different and non-overlapping literature, but it seems to me that most or at least many approaches to modeling creativity involve a notion of spaces of some kind. I won't make a case to back that up but I will list a few examples: Koestler's bisociation is spacial, D. T. Campbell, the Fogels, Finke et al, and William Calvin's evolutionary notion of creativity involve a behavioral or conceptual fitness landscape, Gilles Fauconnier Mark Turner's theory of conceptual blending on mental space, etc. etc. The idea of the website you posted is very lacking in any kind of explanatory power in my opinion. To me any theory of creativity should be able to show how a system is able to generate novel and good results. Creativity is more than just outside what is known, created, or working. That is a description of novelty, and with no suggestions for the why or how of generating novelty. Creativity also requires the semantic potential to reflect on and direct the focusing in on the stream of playful novelty to that which is desired or considered good. I would disagree that creativity is outside the established/known. A better characterization would be that it resides on the complex boundary of the novel and the established, which is what make it interesting instead just a copy, or just total gobbledygook randomness. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity
I wasn't trying for a detailed model of creative thinking with explanatory power - merely one dimension (and indeed a foundation) of it. In contrast to rational, deterministically programmed computers and robots wh. can only operate in closed spaces externally, (artificial environments) and only think in closed spaces internally, human (real AGI) agents are designed to operate in the open world externally, (real world environments) and to think in open worlds internally. IOW when you think about any creative problem, like what am I going to do tonight? or let me write a post in reply to MT - you *don't* have a nice neat space/frame of options lined up as per a computer program, which your brain systematically checks through. You have an open world of associations - associated with varying degrees of power - wh. you have to search, or since AI has corrupted that word, perhaps we should say quest through in haphazard, nonsystematic fashion. You have to *explore* your brain for ideas - and it is a risky business, wh. (with more difficult problems) may draw a blank. (Nor BTW does your brain set up a space for solving creative problems - as was vaguely mooted in a recent discussion with Ben. Closed spaces are strictly for rational problems). IMO though this contrast of narrow AI/rationality as thinking in closed spaces vs AGI/creativity as thinking in open worlds is a very powerful one. Re your examples, I don't think Koestler or Fauconnier are talking of defined or closed spaces. The latter is v. vague about the nature of his spaces. I think they're rather like the formulae for creativity that our folk culture often talks about. V. loosely. They aren't used in the strict senses the terms have in rationality - logic/maths/programming. Note that Calvin's/Piaget's idea of consciousness as designed for when you don't know what to do accords with my idea of creative thinking as effectively starting from a blank page rather than than a ready space of options, and going on to explore a world of associations for ideas. P.S. I should have stressed that the open world of the brain is **multidomain**, indeed **open-domain by contrast with the spaces of programs wh. are closed, uni-domain. When you search for what am I going to do..? your brain can go through an endless world of domains - movies,call a friend, watch TV, browse the net, meal, go for walk, play a sport, ask s.o. for novel ideas, spend time with my kid ... and on and on. The space thinking of rationality is superefficient but rigid and useless for AGI. The open world of the human, creative mind is highly inefficient by comparison but superflexible and the only way to do AGI. From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:06 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] The Math Behind Creativity On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I think it's v. useful - although I was really extending his idea. Correct me - but almost no matter what you guys do, (or anyone in AI does) , you think in terms of spaces, or frames. Spaces of options. Whether you're doing logic, maths, or programs, spaces in one form or other are fundamental. But you won't find anyone - or show me to the contrary - applying spaces to creative problems (or AGI problems). T I guess we may somehow be familiar with different and non-overlapping literature, but it seems to me that most or at least many approaches to modeling creativity involve a notion of spaces of some kind. I won't make a case to back that up but I will list a few examples: Koestler's bisociation is spacial, D. T. Campbell, the Fogels, Finke et al, and William Calvin's evolutionary notion of creativity involve a behavioral or conceptual fitness landscape, Gilles Fauconnier Mark Turner's theory of conceptual blending on mental space, etc. etc. The idea of the website you posted is very lacking in any kind of explanatory power in my opinion. To me any theory of creativity should be able to show how a system is able to generate novel and good results. Creativity is more than just outside what is known, created, or working. That is a description of novelty, and with no suggestions for the why or how of generating novelty. Creativity also requires the semantic potential to reflect on and direct the focusing in on the stream of playful novelty to that which is desired or considered good. I would disagree that creativity is outside the established/known. A better characterization would be that it resides on the complex boundary of the novel and the established, which is what make it interesting instead just a copy, or just total gobbledygook randomness. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 23:38 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: Michael:but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud mushroom (B). if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image )) One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used maths + logic to prove it Michael, This is a bit desperate isn't it? It's a common misconception that high level queries aren't very good. Imagine 5 senses, sight, touch taste .. etc. We confirm the input is from sight. By doing this we potentially reduce the combination of what it could be by 4/5 ~ 80%. which is pretty awesome. Computer programs know nothing. You have to tell them everything (narrow AI) or allow the mechanics to find out things for themselves. They both come from image sources. So do a zillion other images, from Obama to dung - so they're all alike? Everything in the world is alike and metaphorical for everything else? And their images must be alike because they both have an 'o' and a 'u' in their words, (not their images)- unless you're a Chinese speaker. Pace Lear, that way madness lies. Why don't you apply your animation side to the problem - and analyse the images per images, and how to compare them as images? Some people in AGI although not AFAIK on this forum are actually addressing the problem. I'm sure *you* can too. -- From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:28 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:45 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: Let's crystallise the problem - all the unsolved problems of AGI - visual object recognition, conceptualisation, analogy, metaphor, creativity, language understanding and generation - are problems where you're dealing with freeform, irregular patchwork objects - objects which clearly do not fit any *patterns* - the raison d'etre of maths . To focus that , these objects do not have common parts in more or less precisely repeating structures - i.e. fit patterns. A cartoon and a photo of the same face may have no parts or structure in common. Ditto different versions of the Google logo. Zero common parts or structure Ditto cloud and mushroom - no common parts, or common structure. Yet the mind amazingly can see likenesses between all these things. Just about all the natural objects in the world , with some obvious exceptions, do not fit common patterns - they do not have the same parts in precisely the same places/structures. They may have common loose organizations of parts - e.g. mouths, eyes, noses, lips - but they are not precisely patterned. So you must explain how a mathematical approach, wh. is all about recognizing patterns, can apply to objects wh. do not fit patterns. You won't be able to - because if you could bring yourselves to look at the real world or any depictions of it other than geometric, (metacognitively speaking),you would see for yourself that these objects don't have precise patterns. It's obvious also that when the mind likens a cloud to a mushroom, it cannot be using any math. techniques. .. but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud mushroom (B). if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image )) One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used maths + logic to prove it. But we have to understand how the mind does do that - because it's fairly clearly the same technique the mind also uses to conceptualise even more vastly different forms such as those of chair, tree, dog, cat. And that technique - like concepts themselves - is at the heart of AGI. And you can sit down and analyse the problem visually, physically and see also pretty obviously that if the mind can liken such physically different objects as cloud and mushroom, then it HAS to do that with something like a fluid schema. There's broadly no other way but to fluidly squash the objects to match each other (there could certainly be different techniques of achieving that - but the broad principles are fairly self evident). Cloud and mushroom certainly don't match formulaically, mathematically. Neither do those different versions of a tune. Or the different faces of Madonna. But what we've got here is people who don't in the final analysis give a damn about how to solve AGI - if it's a choice between doing maths and failing, and having some kind of artistic solution to AGI that actually works, most people here will happily fail forever. Mathematical AI has indeed consistently failed at AGI. You have to realise, mathematicians have a certain kind of madness. Artists don't go around saying God is an artist, or everything is art. Only
