Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 cortex, yes, this is true, but this isn't going to be like tracing the programmer pathway in a brain. You might just end up tracing the entire brain [which is another project that I fully support, of course]. You can imagine this as the signals being traced back to their origins back to the spine and the CNS like the cerebellum and motor cortex, and then from the somatosensory cortex that gave them the feedback for debugger error output (parse error, rawr), etc. You could even spice up the experimental scenario by tracking different strategies and their executions in response to bugs, sure. Ask them to use the keyboard for everything - (how much do you guys use the keyboard vs say paper or other things?) - and you can automatically record key-presses. Right. Hasn't anyone done this in any shape or form? It might sound as if it would produce terribly complicated results, but my guess is that they would be fascinating just to look at (and compare technique) as well as analyse. I don't think it's sufficient to keep it as analyses, here's why: http://heybryan.org/humancortex.html Basically, wouldn't it be interesting to have an online/real-time/run-time system for keeping track of your brain as you program? This would allow for neurofeedback and some other possibilities. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 if it could be made so, computer systems would not always want to do so. Have you every had a programmed computer system say to you. This program is not responding, do you wish to terminate it. There is no reason in principle why the decision to terminate the program couldn't be made automatically. These errors are computed. Do what I mean, not what I say is a common phrase thrown around in programming circles. The errors are not because that suddenly the ALU decided to not be present, and the errors are not because it suddenly lost its status as a Turing machine (although if you drove a rock through it, this is quite likely). Rather this is because you failed to write a good kernel. And yes, the decision to terminate programs can be made automatically, and I sometimes choose scripts on my clusters to kill things that haven't been responding for a certain amount of time, but usually I prefer to investigate it by hand since it's so rare. Very different kinds of machines to us. Very different paradigm. (No?) We commonly talk about single program systems because they are generally interesting, and can be analysed simply. My discussion on self-modifying systems ignored the interrupt driven multi-tasking nature of the system I want to build, because that makes analysis a lot more hard. I will still be building an interrupt driven, multi tasking system. That's an interesting proposal, but I'm wondering about something. Suppose you have a cluster of processors, and they are all communicating with each other in some way to divide up tasks and compute away. Now, given the ability to send interrupts from one another, and given the linear nature of each individual unit, is it really multitasking? At some point it has to integrate all of the results together at a single node for writing at a single address on the hdd (or something) so that the results are in one single place, that or the reading function of the results must do this. Is it really then multi-tasking and parallel? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. I'm pretty sure that compiler optimizers, that go in and look at your loops and other computational elements of a program, are able to make assessments like that. Of course, they'll just leave it as it is instead of completely ignoring parts of your program that you wish to compile, but it does seem similar. I recently came across an evolutionary optimizer for compilers to test parameters to gcc to try to figure the best way to compile a program on a certain architecture (to learn all of the gcc parameters yourself seems impossible sometimes, you see). Perhaps there's some evolved laziness in the human brain that could be modeled with gcc easily enough. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 to the brain simulation projects? There is a biophysical basis to the brain and it's being discovered and hammered out. You can, in fact, predict the results of the eye-blink rabbit experiments (I'm working with a lab on this - the simulations return results faster than the real neurons do in the lab. You can imagine how this is useful for hypothesis testing purposes.). - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 paradigm it just needs a different way of thinking about the systems. E.g. how can you design a system that does not need a human around to fix mistakes, upgrade it or maintain it in general. Yes, these systems are interesting. I can easily imagine a system that generates systems that have low human maintenance costs. But suppose that the system that you make generates a system (with that low hu maint cost), and this 2nd-gen system does it again and again. This is the problem of clanking replicators too -- you need to have some way to correct divergence and for errors of replication; and not only that, but as you go into new environments there are new things that have to be taken into account for maintenance. Bacteria solve this problem with having many billions of cells per culture and then having enough genetic variability to somehow scrounge up a partial solution within time -- so that once you get to the Nth-generation you're not screwed entirely if some change occurs in the environment. There was a recent experiment in the news that has been going for 20 years, the Michigan man who had bacterial selection experiments in bottles for the past 20 years only to find that they evolved an ability to metabolize something they didn't metabolize before. That's an example of being able to work in new environments, and there's a lot of cost to it (dead bacteria, many generations, etc.) that silicon projects can't quite do simply because of resource/cost constraints if you use traditional approaches. What would an alternative approach look like? One where you don't need dead silicon projects, and one where you have enough instances of programs that you're able to find a solution with your genetic algorithm in enough time? The increasing availability of RAM and hdd space might be enough to let us bruteforce it, but the embodiment of bacteria in the problem domains is something that more memory strategies don't quite address. Thoughts? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 this is starting to get into an odd-mix of folk psychology. I was reading an excellent paper the other day that says this very plainly, written by Gerhard Werner: The Siren Call of metaphor: Subverting the proper task of Neuroscience http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~werner/siren_call.pdf The case of Neuro-Psychological vs. Naturalistic Neuroscience. For grounding the argument, let us look at the case of ‘deciding to’ [34] in studies of conditioned motor behavior in monkeys, on which there is a rich harvest of imaginative experimental work on scholarly reviews available. I write this in profound respect for the investigators who conduct this work with immense ingenuity and sophistication. However, I question the soundness of the conceptual framework on which such experiments are predicated, observations are interpreted, and conclusions are formulated. I contend that current practices tend to disregard genuine issues in Neurophysiology with its own definitions of what legitimate propositions and criteria of valid statements in this discipline are. Here is the typical experimental protocol: the experimenter uses some measure of neural activity of his/her choice (usual neural spike discharges), recorded from a neural structure (selected by him/her on some criterion, and determines relations to behavior that he/she created as link between two events: an antecedent stimulus ( chosen by him/her) and a consequent, arbitrary behavior, induced by the training protocol [49]. So far, the experimenter has done all the ‘deciding’, except leaving it up to the monkey to assign a “value” to complying with the experimental protocol. Different investigators summarize their experimental objective in various ways (in the interest of brevity, I slightly paraphrase, though being careful to preserving the original sense): to characterize neural computations representing the formation of perceptual decision [12]; to investigate the neural basis of a decision process [37]; to examine the coupling of neural processes of stimulus selection with response preparation [34], reflecting connections between motor system and cognitive processes [38] ; to assess neural activity indicating probabilistic reward anticipation [22,27]. In Shadlen and Newsome’s [37] evocative analogy “it is a jury’s deliberation in which sensory signals are the evidence in open court, and motor signals the jury’s verdict”. Helpful as metaphors and analogies can be as interim steps for making sense of the observation in familiar terms, they also import the conceptual burden of their source domain and lead us to attribute to the animal a decision and choice making capacity along principles for which Psychology has developed evidential and conceptual accounts in humans under entirely different conditions, and based on different observational facts. Nevertheless, armed with the metaphors of choice and decision, we assert that the observed neural activity is a “correlate” [19] of a decision to emit the observed behavior. As the preceding citations indicate, the observed neural activity is variously attributed to perceptual discrimination between competing (or conflicting) stimuli, to motor planning, or to reward anticipation; the implication being that the neural activity stands for (“represents”) one or the other of these psychological categories. So, Mike, when you write like: 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. It makes me wonder how you can assert the existence of a neurophysical basis of the existence of 'task', in terms of the *brain*, not in terms of our folk psychology and collective cultural background that has given us these names to these things. It's hard to talk about the brain from the biology-up, yes, that's true, but it's also very rewarding in that we don't make top-down misunderstandings. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 quantum mechanics 3) the expression of our god-given spirit, or some other non-physical mover of physical things I've already mentioned an alternative on this mailing list that you haven't included in your question, would you consider it? http://heybryan.org/free_will.html ^ Just so that I don't have to keep on rewriting it over and over again. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 Computer/Organiser To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 11:44 AM 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 quantum mechanics 3) the expression of our god-given spirit, or some other non-physical mover of physical things I've already mentioned an alternative on this mailing list that you haven't included in your question, would you consider it? http://heybryan.org/free_will.html ^ Just so that I don't have to keep on rewriting it over and over again. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 would not always want to do so. Will, That's a legalistic, not a valid objection, (although heartfelt!).In the above case, the computer is guaranteed to hang - and it does, strictly, complete its task. Not necessarily, the task could be interrupted at that process stopped or paused indefinately. What's happened is that you have had imperfect knowledge of the program's operations. Had you known more, you would have known that it would hang. If it hung because of mult-process issues, you would need perfect knowledge of the environment to know the possible timing issues as well. 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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. Computers aren't free thinkers, but it does not follow from an inability to switch, cancel, pause and restart or modify tasks. All of which they can do admirably. They just don't tend to do so, because they aren't smart enough (and cannot change themselves to be so) to know when it might be appropriate for what they are trying to do, so it is left up to the human operator to do so. 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 paradigm it just needs a different way of thinking about the systems. E.g. how can you design a system that does not need a human around to fix mistakes, upgrade it or maintain it in general. As they change their own system I will not know what they are going to do, because they can get information from the environment about how to act. This will me it a 'free thinker' of sorts. Whether it will be enough to get what you want, is an empirical matter, as far as I am concerned. Will --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 will do its job. Humans are only human, not a machine. Employ one of those, incl. yourself, and, by comparison, you have only a v. limited idea of what you're getting - whether they'll do the job at all, to what extent, how well. Employ a programmer, a plumber etc etc.. Can you get a good one these days?... VAST difference. And that's the negative side of our positive side - the fact that we're 1) supremely adaptable, and 2) can tackle those problems that no machine or current AGI - (actually of course, there is no such thing at the mo, only pretenders) - can even *begin* to tackle. Our unreliability . That, I suggest, only comes from having no set structure - no computer program - no program of action in the first place. (Hey, good idea, who needs a program?) Here's a simple, extreme example. Will, I want you to take up to an hour, and come up with a dance, called the Keyboard Shuffle. (A very ill-structured problem.) Hey, you can do that. You can tackle a seriously ill-structured problem. You can embark on an activity you've never done before, presumably had no training for, have no structure for, yet you will, if cooperative, come up with something - cobble together a session of that activity, and end-product, an actual dance. May be shit, but it'll be a dance. And that's only an extreme example of how you approach EVERY activity. You similarly don't have a structure for your next hour[s], if you're writing an essay, or a program, or spending time watching TV, flipping chanels. You may quickly *adopt* or *form* certain structures/ routines. But they only go part way, and you do have to adopt and/or create them. Now, I assert, that's what an AGI is - a machine that has no programs, (no preset, complete structures for any activities), designed to tackle ill-structured problems by creating and adopting structures, not automatically following ones that have been laboured over for ridiculous amounts of time by human programmers offstage. And that in parallel, though in an obviously more constrained way, is what every living organism is - an extraordinary machine that builds itself adaptively and flexibly, as it goes along - Dawkins' famous plane that builds itself in mid-air. Just as we construct our activities in mid-air. Also a very different machine paradigm to any we have at the mo (although obviously lots of people are currently trying to design/understand such self-building machines). P.S. The irony is that scientists and rational philosophers, faced with the extreme nature of human imperfection - our extreme fallibility (in the sense described above - i.e. liable to fail/give up/procrastinate at any given activity at any point in a myriad of ways) - have dismissed it as, essentially, down to bugs in the system. Things that can be fixed. AGI-ers have the capacity like no one else to see and truly appreciate that such fallibility = highly desirable adaptability and that humans/animals really are fundamentally different machines. P.P.S. BTW that's the proper analogy for constructing an AGI - not inventing the plane (easy-peasy), but inventing the plane that builds itself in mid-air, (whole new paradigm of machine- and mind- invention). Will: 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 a legalistic, not a valid objection, (although heartfelt!).In the above case, the computer is guaranteed to hang - and it does, strictly, complete its task. Not necessarily, the task could be interrupted at that process stopped or paused indefinately. What's happened is that you have had imperfect knowledge of the program's operations. Had you known more, you would have known that it would hang. If it hung because of mult-process issues, you would need perfect knowledge of the environment to know the possible timing issues as well. 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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. Computers aren't free thinkers, but it does not follow from an inability to switch, cancel, pause and restart or modify tasks. All of which they can do admirably. They just don't tend to do so, because they aren't smart enough (and cannot change
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 ourself. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 sure - but basically, in general, it will do its job. What exactly is a desktop computers job? Humans are only human, not a machine. Employ one of those, incl. yourself, and, by comparison, you have only a v. limited idea of what you're getting - whether they'll do the job at all, to what extent, how well. Employ a programmer, a plumber etc etc.. Can you get a good one these days?... VAST difference. If you find a new computer that I do not know how it has been programmed (whether it has linux/windows and what version). You also lack knowledge of what it is going to do. Aibo is a computer as well! It follows a program. And that's the negative side of our positive side - the fact that we're 1) supremely adaptable, and 2) can tackle those problems that no machine or current AGI - (actually of course, there is no such thing at the mo, only pretenders) - can even *begin* to tackle. Our unreliability . That, I suggest, only comes from having no set structure - no computer program - no program of action in the first place. (Hey, good idea, who needs a program?) You equate set structure with computer program. A computer program is not set! There is set structure of some sorts in the brain, at the neural level anyway. so you would have to be more precise in what you mean by lack of set structure. Wait, program of action? You don't think computer programs are like lists of things to do in the real world, do you? That is just something cooked up by the language writers to make things easier to deal with, a computer program is really only about memory manipulation. Some of the memory locations might be hooked up to the real world, but at the end of the day the computer treats it all as semanticless memory manipulations. Since what controls the memory manipulations are themselves in memory, they to can be manipulated! Here's a simple, extreme example. Will, I want you to take up to an hour, and come up with a dance, called the Keyboard Shuffle. (A very ill-structured problem.) How about you go learn about self-modifying assembly language, preferably with real-time interrupts. That would be a better use of the time, I think. Will Pearson --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 (to my knowledge). A computer is just a system for holding a theory of intelligence which does not look like those primitives (at least not since the view that intelligence consists of simple interpretations of atomic tokens representing physical objects in small numbers of relationships with other such tokens was given up decades ago as insufficient). As an example, the representational mechansms in Novamente and the dynamics of the mind agents that operate on them are probably better thought of as churning masses of probability relationships with varying and often non-specific semantic interpretations than Tintner's narrow view of what a computer is -- although I do not yet understand Novamente in detail. He has to ignore all such efforts, though, because if he paid attention he would have to stop saying that NONE of us understand ANYTHING about how REAL intelligence is actually based on line drawings, or keyboards, or other childish notions. Though he's in my killfile I do see his posts when others take the bait. So Mike, please try to finally understand this: 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. We know it is deeper than that. This has been clear to just about everybody for many many years. By engaging the field at such a level you do nothing worthwhile. Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:38:59 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser 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 sure - but basically, in general, it will do its job. What exactly is a desktop computers job? --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 but a structure., including as per NARS, as I 've read Pei, a structure that may change more or less continuously. Techno-idiot that I am, I am fairly aware that many modern programs are extremely sophisticated and complex structures. I take into account, for example, Minsky's idea of a possible society of mind, with many different parts perhaps competing - not obviously realised in program form yet. But programs are nevertheless manifestly structures. Would you dispute that? And a central point I've been making is that human life and activities are manifestly *unstructured* - that in just about everything we do, we struggle to impose structure on our activities - to impose order and organization., planning, focus etc. . Especially in AGI's central challenge -creativity. Creative activities are outstanding examples of unstructured activities, in which structures have to be created - painting scenes, writing stories, designing new machines, writing music/pop songs - often starting from an entirely blank page. (What's the program equivalent?) 2. A Programmer on Programs. I am persuaded on multiple grounds that the human mind is not always algorithmic, nor merely computational in the syntactic sense of computational. S Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred Try Chap 12. Computationally, he trumps most AGI-ers in terms of most AI departments, incl. complexity, bioinformatics and general standing, no? Read the whole book in fact - it can be read as being entirely about the creative problem/challenge of AGI - you liked Barsalou, you'll like this. . --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 doing it for sensible reasons. And that's the long part - there are a continuous stream of sensible reasons, as there are for current nondeterministic computer choices. Yes, strictly, a nondeterministic *program* can be regarded as a contradiction - i.e. a structured *series* of instructions to decide freely . The way the human mind is programmed is that we are not only free, and have to, *decide* either way about certain decisions, but we are also free to *think* about it - i.e. to decide metacognitively whether and how we decide at all - we continually decide. for example, to put off the decision till later. So the simple reality of being as free to decide and think as you are, is that when you sit down to engage in any task, like write a post, essay, or have a conversation, or almost literally anything, there is no guarantee that you will start, or continue to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th step, let alone complete it. You may jack in your post more or less immediately. This is at once the bane and the blessing of your life, and why you have such extraordinary problems finishing so many things. Procrastination. By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are guaranteed to complete any task they begin. (Zero procrastination or deviation). Very different kinds of machines to us. Very different paradigm. (No?) I would say then that the human mind is strictly not so much nondeterministically programmed as briefed. And that's how an AGI will have to function. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 always want to do so. Have you every had a programmed computer system say to you. This program is not responding, do you wish to terminate it. There is no reason in principle why the decision to terminate the program couldn't be made automatically. (Zero procrastination or deviation). Multi-tasking systems deviate all the time... Very different kinds of machines to us. Very different paradigm. (No?) We commonly talk about single program systems because they are generally interesting, and can be analysed simply. My discussion on self-modifying systems ignored the interrupt driven multi-tasking nature of the system I want to build, because that makes analysis a lot more hard. I will still be building an interrupt driven, multi tasking system. Will Pearson --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 a legalistic, not a valid objection, (although heartfelt!).In the above case, the computer is guaranteed to hang - and it does, strictly, complete its task. What's happened is that you have had imperfect knowledge of the program's operations. Had you known more, you would have known that it would hang. 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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 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 a legalistic, not a valid objection, (although heartfelt!).In the above case, the computer is guaranteed to hang - and it does, strictly, complete its task. What's happened is that you have had imperfect knowledge of the program's operations. Had you known more, you would have known that it would hang. 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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 well-defined without being computable (take Newton's physics for example). So, 1) Is the next action that your creativity machine will take intended to be uniquely defined, given its experience and inputs? 2) is the next action intended to be computable from the experience and inputs? Meaning (approximately), could the creativity machine be implemented on a computer? --Abram On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Abram: 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, You're operating within a philosophical paradigm that says all actions and problemsolving must be preprogrammed. Nothing else is possible. That ignores the majority of real life problems where no program is possible, period. Sometimes the best plan is no plan If you're confronted with the task of finding something in a foreign territory, you simply don't (and couldn't) have the luxury of a program. All you have is a rough idea, as opposed to an algorithm, of the sort of things you can do. You know roughly what you're looking for - an object somewhere in that territory. You know roughly how to travel and put one foor in front of the other and avoid obstacles and pick things up etc. (Let's say - you have to find a key that has been lost somewhere in a house). Well you certainly don't have an algorithm for finding a lost key in a house. In fact, if you or anyone would care to spend 5 mins on this problem, you would start to realise that no algorithm is possible. Check out Kauffman's interview on edge.com. for similar problems arguments . So what do/can you do? Make it up as you go along. Start somewhere and keep going, and after a while if that doesn't work, try somewhere and something else... But there's no algorithm for this. Just as there is, or was, no algorithm for your putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together (a much simpler, more tightly defined problem). You just got stuck in. Somewhere. Anywhere reasonable. Algorithms, from a human POV, are for literal people who have to do things by the book - people with a compulsive obsessional disorder - who can't bear to confront a blank page. :).V useful *after* you've solved a problem, but not in the beginning There are no physical, computational, mechanical reasons why machines can't be designed on these principles - to proceed with rough ideas of what to do, freely consulting and combining options and looking around for fresh ones, as they go along, rather than following a preprogrammed list. P.S. Nothing in this is strictly random - as in a narrow AI, randomly, blindly. working its way through a preprogrammed list. You only try options that are appropriate - routes that appear likely to lead to your goal. I would call this unstructured but not (blindly) random thinking. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 plan - to the original, less-than-omniscient-of-what-he-hath-wrought programmer. (A 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. 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 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 a legalistic, not a valid objection, (although heartfelt!).In the above case, the computer is guaranteed to hang - and it does, strictly, complete its task. What's happened is that you have had imperfect knowledge of the program's operations. Had you known more, you would have known that it would hang. 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 I do solve this.. or... .. or ... Computers, currently, aren't free thinkers. --- 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/?; 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 dualistic to say this. On one hand you're calling it a 'reality' and on the other you're denying the influence of material or mechanism. What exactly is deciding then, a soul? How do you get one of those into an AI? Yes, strictly, a nondeterministic *program* can be regarded as a contradiction - i.e. a structured *series* of instructions to decide freely. At some point you will have to explain how this deciding freely works. As of now, all you have done is name it. The way the human mind is programmed is that we are not only free, and have to, *decide* either way about certain decisions, but we are also free to *think* about it - i.e. to decide metacognitively whether and how we decide at all - we continually decide. for example, to put off the decision till later. There is an entire school of thought, quite mainstream now, in cognitive science that says that what appears to be free will is an illusion. Of course, you can say that you are free to choose whatever you like, but that only speaks to the strength of the illusion - that in itself is not enough to disprove the claim. In fact, it is plain to see that if you do not commit yourself to this view (free will as illusion), you are either a dualist, or you must invoke some kind of probabilistic mechanism (as some like Penrose have done by saying that the free-will buck stops at the level of quantum mechanics). 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 quantum mechanics 3) the expression of our god-given spirit, or some other non-physical mover of physical things By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are guaranteed to complete any task they begin. (Zero procrastination or deviation). Very different kinds of machines to us. Very different paradigm. (No?) I think the difference of paradigm between computers and humans is not that one is deterministic and one isn't, but rather that one is a paradigm of top-down, serialized control, and the other is bottom-up, massively parallel, and emergent. It comes down to design vs. emergence. Terren --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 algorithmic systems cannot do. You gave some examples. William took a couple of these examples and argued that they are routinely done by multi-tasking systems. You say that those methods do not really count, because they reduce to normal computation. I say that that is not a valid response, because that was exactly Will's point, that they do reduce to normal computations. To make your objection work, you need to argue that humans do not do the same sort of thing when we change our minds about something. 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 plan - to the original, less-than-omniscient-of-what-he-hath-wrought programmer. (A 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. It still sounds like you are describing physical randomness. --Abram --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 organization to those 26 letters etc. They can be freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of texts. That is the very essence and manifestly, the whole point, of a keyboard. Yes, the keyboard is only an instrument. But your body - and your brain - which use it, are themselves keyboards. They consist of parts which also have no fundamental behavioural organization - that can be freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of sequences of movements and thought - dances, texts, speeches, daydreams, postures etc. In abstract logical principle, it could all be preprogrammed. But I doubt that it's possible mathematically - a program for selecting from an infinity of possibilities? And it would be engineering madness - like trying to preprogram a particular way of playing music, when an infinite repertoire is possible and the environment, (in this case musical culture), is changing and evolving with bewildering and unpredictable speed. To look at computers as what they are (are you disputing this?) - machines for creating programs first, and following them second, is a radically different way of looking at computers. It also fits with radically different approaches to DNA - moving away from the idea of DNA as coded program, to something that can be, as it obviously can be, played like a keyboard - see Dennis Noble, The Music of Life. It fits with the fact (otherwise inexplicable) that all intelligences have both deliberate (creative) and automatic (routine) levels - and are not just automatic, like purely programmed computers. And it fits with the way computers are actually used and programmed, rather than the essentially fictional notion of them as pure turing machines. 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 that directly addresses that problem - are you? You can't create a program out of thin air. So you have to have some sort of program to start with. You probably want to change the initial program in some way as well as perhaps adding more programming. This leads you to recursive self-change and its subset RSI, which is a very tricky business even if you don't think it is going to go FOOM and take over the world. So this very list has been discussing in abstract terms the very thing you want it to be discussing! Will --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 write video/multimedia articles/journalism fast and simply. That's what you actually DO. You start with v. general briefs rather than any detailed list of instructions, and fill them in as you go along, in an ad hoc, improvisational way - manifestly *creating* rather than *following* organized structures of behaviour in an initially disorganized way. 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 come there is no sign of that being true, in the creative process of programmers actually writing programs? Do you think that there's a program for improvising on a piano [or other form of keyboard]? That's what AGI's are supposed to do - improvise. So create one that can. Like you. And every other living creature. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 environment acts on us and we act on it - we absorb information from it and we change it while it changes us. 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. Vale On 9/4/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 write video/multimedia articles/journalism fast and simply. That's what you actually DO. You start with v. general briefs rather than any detailed list of instructions, and fill them in as you go along, in an ad hoc, improvisational way - manifestly *creating* rather than *following* organized structures of behaviour in an initially disorganized way. 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 come there is no sign of that being true, in the creative process of programmers actually writing programs? Do you think that there's a program for improvising on a piano [or other form of keyboard]? That's what AGI's are supposed to do - improvise. So create one that can. Like you. And every other living creature. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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: http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/dqg/Papers/wurzburg.ps http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/ficacm.ps http://www.la-acm.org/Archives/laacm9912.html The concept that seems most relevant to AI is the learning theory provided by inductive turing machines, but I cannot find a good single reference for that. (I am not knowledgable on this subject, I just have heard the idea before.) --Abram --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 opposed to that exemplified by most actual machines, which are rational, deterministic machines. The latter can only engage in any task in set ways - and therefore engage and combine their organs in set combinations and sequences. Creative machines have a more or less infinite range of possible ways of going about things, and can combine their organs in a virtually infinite range of combinations, (which gives them a slight advantage, adaptively :) ). Organisms *are* creative machines; computers and robots *could* be (and are, when combined with humans), AGI's will *have* to be. (To talk of creative machines, more specifically, as I did, as keyboards/organisers is to focus on the mechanics of this infinite combinativity of organs). Interaction machines do not seem in any way then to entail what I'm talking about - creative machines - keyboards/ organisers - infinite combinativity - or the *creation,* as quite distinct from *following* of programs/algorithms and routines.. Abram/MT: 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: http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/dqg/Papers/wurzburg.ps http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/ficacm.ps http://www.la-acm.org/Archives/laacm9912.html The concept that seems most relevant to AI is the learning theory provided by inductive turing machines, but I cannot find a good single reference for that. (I am not knowledgable on this subject, I just have heard the idea before.) --Abram --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 must be pointed out that if you abandon determinism, you find yourself in the world of dualism, or worse. There are several ways out of this conundrum, one involves complexity/emergence (global behavior cannot be understood in terms of reduction to local behavior), another involves algorithmic complexity (or complicatedness, behavior cannot be predicted due to limitations of our inborn abilities to mentally model such complicatedness), although either can be predicted in principle with sufficient computational resources. This is true of humans as well - and if you think it isn't, once again, you're committing yourself to some kind of dualistic position (e.g., we are motivated by our spirit). If you accept the proposition that the appearance of free will in an agent comes down to one's ability to predict its behavior, then either of the schemes above serves to produce free will (or the illusion of it, if you prefer). 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. Terren --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 12:47 AM 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 freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of texts. That is the very essence and manifestly, the whole point, of a keyboard. Yes, the keyboard is only an instrument. But your body - and your brain - which use it, are themselves keyboards. They consist of parts which also have no fundamental behavioural organization - that can be freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of sequences of movements and thought - dances, texts, speeches, daydreams, postures etc. In abstract logical principle, it could all be preprogrammed. But I doubt that it's possible mathematically - a program for selecting from an infinity of possibilities? And it would be engineering madness - like trying to preprogram a particular way of playing music, when an infinite repertoire is possible and the environment, (in this case musical culture), is changing and evolving with bewildering and unpredictable speed. To look at computers as what they are (are you disputing this?) - machines for creating programs first, and following them second, is a radically different way of looking at computers. It also fits with radically different approaches to DNA - moving away from the idea of DNA as coded program, to something that can be, as it obviously can be, played like a keyboard - see Dennis Noble, The Music of Life. It fits with the fact (otherwise inexplicable) that all intelligences have both deliberate (creative) and automatic (routine) levels - and are not just automatic, like purely programmed computers. And it fits with the way computers are actually used and programmed, rather than the essentially fictional notion of them as pure turing machines. 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 that directly addresses that problem - are you? 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 to refer simply to that which we humans do, which in essence says general intelligence is what we humans do. Unfortunately, I found this last email to be quite muddled. Actually, I am sympathetic to a lot of your ideas, Mike, but I also have to say that your tone is quite condescending. There are a lot of smart people on this list, as one would expect, and a little humility and respect on your part would go a long way. Saying things like You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them. More often than not you position
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. A keyboard is precisely what the interaction theorists are trying to account for! Plus the mouse, the ethernet port, et cetera. Moreover, your general comments fit into the model if interpreted judiciously. You make a distinction between rule-based and creative behavior; rule-based behavior could be thought of as isolated processing of input (receive input, process without interference, output result) while creative behavior is behavior resulting from continual interaction with and exploration of the external world. Your concept of organisms as organizers only makes sense when I see it in this light: a human organizes the environment by interaction with it, while a Turing machine is unable to do this because it cannot explore/experiment/discover. -Abram On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 opposed to that exemplified by most actual machines, which are rational, deterministic machines. The latter can only engage in any task in set ways - and therefore engage and combine their organs in set combinations and sequences. Creative machines have a more or less infinite range of possible ways of going about things, and can combine their organs in a virtually infinite range of combinations, (which gives them a slight advantage, adaptively :) ). Organisms *are* creative machines; computers and robots *could* be (and are, when combined with humans), AGI's will *have* to be. (To talk of creative machines, more specifically, as I did, as keyboards/organisers is to focus on the mechanics of this infinite combinativity of organs). Interaction machines do not seem in any way then to entail what I'm talking about - creative machines - keyboards/ organisers - infinite combinativity - or the *creation,* as quite distinct from *following* of programs/algorithms and routines.. Abram/MT: 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: http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/dqg/Papers/wurzburg.ps http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/ficacm.ps http://www.la-acm.org/Archives/laacm9912.html The concept that seems most relevant to AI is the learning theory provided by inductive turing machines, but I cannot find a good single reference for that. (I am not knowledgable on this subject, I just have heard the idea before.) --Abram --- 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/?; 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 front?] There is not and never has been a program that wasn't first created on a keyboard. Indisputable fact. Almost everything that happens in computers happens via the keyboard. http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Egan_quote So what exactly is a keyboard? Well, like all keyboards whether of computers, musical instruments or typewriters, it is a creative instrument. And what makes it creative is that it is - you could say - an organiser. Then you're starting to get into (some well needed) complexity science. A device with certain organs (in this case keys) that are designed to be creatively organised - arranged in creative, improvised (rather than programmed) sequences of action/ association./organ play. Yes, but the genotype isn't the phenotype and the translation from the 'code', the intentions of the programmer and so on to the expressions is 'hard' - people get so caught up in folk psychology that it's maddening. And an extension of the body. Of the organism. All organisms are organisers - devices for creatively sequencing actions/ associations./organs/ nervous systems first and developing fixed, orderly sequences/ routines/ programs second. Some (I) say that neural systems are somewhat like optimizers, which are heavily used in compilers that are compiling your programs anyway, so be careful: the difference might not be that broad. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 discussion, to Pei who tries to argue that NARS is non-algorithmic, because the program is continuously changing. - and therefore satisfies the objections of classical objectors to AI/AGI. Well, both these guys and Pei are still v. much algorithmic in any reasonable sense of the word - still following *structures,* if v. sophisticated (and continuously changing) structures, of thought. 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* of those activities. For example, when you write a post, nearly every word and a great many phrases and even odd sentences, will be automatically, algorithmically produced. But the whole post, and most paras will *not* be - and *could not* be. A creative machine has infinite combinative potential. An algorithmic, programmed machine has strictly limited combinativity.. And a keyboard is surely the near perfect symbol of infinite, unstructured combinativity. It is being, and has been, used in endlessly creative ways - and is, along with the blank page and pencil, the central tool of our civilisation's creativity. Those randomly arranged letters - clearly designed to be infinitely recombined - are the antithesis of a programmed machine. So however those guys account for that keyboard, I don't see them as in any way accounting for it in my sense, or in its true, full usage. But thanks for your comments. (Oh and I did understand re Bayes - I was and am still arguing he isn't valid in many cases, period). 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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. A keyboard is precisely what the interaction theorists are trying to account for! Plus the mouse, the ethernet port, et cetera. Moreover, your general comments fit into the model if interpreted judiciously. You make a distinction between rule-based and creative behavior; rule-based behavior could be thought of as isolated processing of input (receive input, process without interference, output result) while creative behavior is behavior resulting from continual interaction with and exploration of the external world. Your concept of organisms as organizers only makes sense when I see it in this light: a human organizes the environment by interaction with it, while a Turing machine is unable to do this because it cannot explore/experiment/discover. -Abram On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 opposed to that exemplified by most actual machines, which are rational, deterministic machines. The latter can only engage in any task in set ways - and therefore engage and combine their organs in set combinations and sequences. Creative machines have a more or less infinite range of possible ways of going about things, and can combine their organs in a virtually infinite range of combinations, (which gives them a slight advantage, adaptively :) ). Organisms *are* creative machines; computers and robots *could* be (and are, when combined with humans), AGI's will *have* to be. (To talk of creative machines, more specifically, as I did, as keyboards/organisers is to focus on the mechanics of this infinite combinativity of organs). Interaction machines do not seem in any way then to entail what I'm talking about - creative machines - keyboards/ organisers - infinite combinativity - or the *creation,* as quite distinct from *following* of programs/algorithms and routines.. Abram/MT: 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: http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/dqg/Papers/wurzburg.ps http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/ficacm.ps http://www.la-acm.org/Archives/laacm9912.html The concept that seems most relevant to AI is the learning theory provided by inductive turing machines, but I cannot find a good single
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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. http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Egan_quote Egan solved that particular problem. It's about creation -- even if you have the most advanced mathematical theory of the universe, you just made it slightly more recursive and so on just by shuffling around neurotransmitters in your head. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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* of those activities. For example, when you write a post, nearly every word and a great many phrases and even odd sentences, will be automatically, algorithmically produced. But the whole post, and most paras will *not* be - and *could not* be. Here's an alternative formulation for you to play with, Mike. I suspect it is still possible to consider it a creative machine even with an algorithmic basis *because* it is the nature of reality itself to compute these things; there is nothing that can have as much information about the moment than the moment itself, and thus why there's still this element of stochasticity and creativity that we see, even if we say that the brain is deterministic and so on. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 that directly addresses that problem - are you? Mike, one of the big problems in computer science is the prediction of genotypes from phenotypes in general problem spaces. So far, from what I've learned, we haven't a way to guarantee that a resulting process is going to be creative. So it's not going to be solved per-se in the traditional sense of hey look, here's a foolproof equivalency of creativity. I truly hope I am wrong. This is a good way to be wrong about the whole thing, I must admit. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 come there is no sign of that being true, in the creative process of programmers actually writing programs? Two notes on this one. I'd like to see fMRI studies of programmers having at it. I've seen this of authors, but not of programmers per-se. It would be interesting. But this isn't going to work because it'll just show you lots of active regions of the brain and what good does that do you? Another thing I would be interested in showing to people is all of those dead ends and turns that one makes when traveling down those paths. I've sometimes been able to go fully into a recording session where I could write about a few minutes of decisions for hours on end afterwards, but it's just not efficient to getting the point across. I've sometimes wanted to do this for web crawling, when I do my browsing and reading, and at least somewhat track my jumps from page to page and so on, or even in my own grammar and writing so that I can make sure I optimize it :-) and so that I can see where I was going or not going :-) but any solution that requires me to type even /more/ will be a sort of contradiction, since then I will have to type even more, and more. Bah, unused data in the brain should help work with this stuff. Tabletop fMRI and EROS and so on. Fun stuff. Neurobiofeedback. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 resilience in the whole scheme of things. It's not hard to show how stupid each one of us can be in a single moment; but luckily our stupid decisions don't blow us up [often] - it's not so much luck as it might be resilience. In an earlier email to which I replied today, Mike was looking for a resilient computer that didn't need code. On another note: goals are an interesting folk psychology mechanism. I've seen other cultures afflict their own goals upon their environment, sort of how the brain contains a map of the skin for sensory representation, the same with the environment to their own goals and aspirations in life. What alternatives to goals could you do when doing programming? Otherwise you'll not end up with Mike's requested 'resilient computer' as I'm calling it. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 programming. Terren: 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. Oh, they've done loads of work, often fine work, i.e. produced impressive but 'hack' variations on themes, musical, artistic, scripting etc. But the people actually producing those creative/hack variations, will agree, when pressed that they are not truly creative. And actual AGI-ers, to repeat, AFAIK have not produced a single idea about how machines can be creative. Not even a proposal, however wrong. Please point to one. P.S. Glad to see your evolutionary perspective includes the natural kind - I had begun to think, obviously wrongly, that it didn't. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 keyboard for everything - (how much do you guys use the keyboard vs say paper or other things?) - and you can automatically record key-presses. If they use paper, find a surface that records the pen strokes. Combine with a camera recording them. Come on, you must be able to give me still more ways - there are multiple possible recording technologies, no? Hasn't anyone done this in any shape or form? It might sound as if it would produce terribly complicated results, but my guess is that they would be fascinating just to look at (and compare technique) as well as analyse. Bryan/MT: 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 come there is no sign of that being true, in the creative process of programmers actually writing programs? Two notes on this one. I'd like to see fMRI studies of programmers having at it. I've seen this of authors, but not of programmers per-se. It would be interesting. But this isn't going to work because it'll just show you lots of active regions of the brain and what good does that do you? Another thing I would be interested in showing to people is all of those dead ends and turns that one makes when traveling down those paths. I've sometimes been able to go fully into a recording session where I could write about a few minutes of decisions for hours on end afterwards, but it's just not efficient to getting the point across. I've sometimes wanted to do this for web crawling, when I do my browsing and reading, and at least somewhat track my jumps from page to page and so on, or even in my own grammar and writing so that I can make sure I optimize it :-) and so that I can see where I was going or not going :-) but any solution that requires me to type even /more/ will be a sort of contradiction, since then I will have to type even more, and more. Bah, unused data in the brain should help work with this stuff. Tabletop fMRI and EROS and so on. Fun stuff. Neurobiofeedback. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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] wrote: 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 discussion, to Pei who tries to argue that NARS is non-algorithmic, because the program is continuously changing. - and therefore satisfies the objections of classical objectors to AI/AGI. Well, both these guys and Pei are still v. much algorithmic in any reasonable sense of the word - still following *structures,* if v. sophisticated (and continuously changing) structures, of thought. 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* of those activities. For example, when you write a post, nearly every word and a great many phrases and even odd sentences, will be automatically, algorithmically produced. But the whole post, and most paras will *not* be - and *could not* be. A creative machine has infinite combinative potential. An algorithmic, programmed machine has strictly limited combinativity.. And a keyboard is surely the near perfect symbol of infinite, unstructured combinativity. It is being, and has been, used in endlessly creative ways - and is, along with the blank page and pencil, the central tool of our civilisation's creativity. Those randomly arranged letters - clearly designed to be infinitely recombined - are the antithesis of a programmed machine. So however those guys account for that keyboard, I don't see them as in any way accounting for it in my sense, or in its true, full usage. But thanks for your comments. (Oh and I did understand re Bayes - I was and am still arguing he isn't valid in many cases, period). 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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. A keyboard is precisely what the interaction theorists are trying to account for! Plus the mouse, the ethernet port, et cetera. Moreover, your general comments fit into the model if interpreted judiciously. You make a distinction between rule-based and creative behavior; rule-based behavior could be thought of as isolated processing of input (receive input, process without interference, output result) while creative behavior is behavior resulting from continual interaction with and exploration of the external world. Your concept of organisms as organizers only makes sense when I see it in this light: a human organizes the environment by interaction with it, while a Turing machine is unable to do this because it cannot explore/experiment/discover. -Abram On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 opposed to that exemplified by most actual machines, which are rational, deterministic machines. The latter can only engage in any task in set ways - and therefore engage and combine their organs in set combinations and sequences. Creative machines have a more or less infinite range of possible ways of going about things, and can combine their organs in a virtually infinite range of combinations, (which gives them a slight advantage, adaptively :) ). Organisms *are* creative machines; computers and robots *could* be (and are, when combined with humans), AGI's will *have* to be. (To talk of creative machines, more specifically, as I did, as keyboards/organisers is to focus on the mechanics of this infinite combinativity of organs). Interaction machines do not seem in any way then to entail what I'm talking about - creative machines - keyboards/ organisers - infinite combinativity - or the *creation,* as quite distinct from *following* of programs/algorithms and routines.. Abram/MT: 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
[agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
Terren's request for new metaphors/paradigms for intelligence threw me temporarily off course.Why a new one - why not the old one? The computer. But the whole computer. You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them What I'm doing here is what I said philosophers do - outline existing paradigms and point out how they lack certain essential dimensions. When AI-ers look at a computer, the paradigm that they impose on it is that of a Turing machine - a programmed machine, a device for following programs. 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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. 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 front?] There is not and never has been a program that wasn't first created on a keyboard. Indisputable fact. Almost everything that happens in computers happens via the keyboard. So what exactly is a keyboard? Well, like all keyboards whether of computers, musical instruments or typewriters, it is a creative instrument. And what makes it creative is that it is - you could say - an organiser. A device with certain organs (in this case keys) that are designed to be creatively organised - arranged in creative, improvised (rather than programmed) sequences of action/ association./organ play. And an extension of the body. Of the organism. All organisms are organisers - devices for creatively sequencing actions/ associations./organs/ nervous systems first and developing fixed, orderly sequences/ routines/ programs second. All organisers are manifestly capable of an infinity of creative, novel sequences, both rational and organized, and crazy and disorganized. The idea that organisers (including computers) are only meant to follow programs - to be straitjacketed in movement and thought - is obviously untrue. Touch the keyboard. Which key comes first? What's the program for creating any program? And there lies the secret of AGI. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 to refer simply to that which we humans do, which in essence says general intelligence is what we humans do. Unfortunately, I found this last email to be quite muddled. Actually, I am sympathetic to a lot of your ideas, Mike, but I also have to say that your tone is quite condescending. There are a lot of smart people on this list, as one would expect, and a little humility and respect on your part would go a long way. Saying things like You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them. More often than not you position yourself as the sole source of enlightened wisdom on AI and other subjects, and that does not make me want to get to know your ideas any better. Sorry to veer off topic here, but I say these things because I think some of your ideas are valid and could really benefit from an adjustment in your presentation of them, and yourself. If I didn't think you had anything worthwhile to say, I wouldn't bother. Terren --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:42 PM Terren's request for new metaphors/paradigms for intelligence threw me temporarily off course.Why a new one - why not the old one? The computer. But the whole computer. You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them What I'm doing here is what I said philosophers do - outline existing paradigms and point out how they lack certain essential dimensions. When AI-ers look at a computer, the paradigm that they impose on it is that of a Turing machine - a programmed machine, a device for following programs. 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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. 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 front?] There is not and never has been a program that wasn't first created on a keyboard. Indisputable fact. Almost everything that happens in computers happens via the keyboard. So what exactly is a keyboard? Well, like all keyboards whether of computers, musical instruments or typewriters, it is a creative instrument. And what makes it creative is that it is - you could say - an organiser. A device with certain organs (in this case keys) that are designed to be creatively organised - arranged in creative, improvised (rather than programmed) sequences of action/ association./organ play. And an extension of the body. Of the organism. All organisms are organisers - devices for creatively sequencing actions/ associations./organs/ nervous systems first and developing fixed, orderly sequences/ routines/ programs second. All organisers are manifestly capable of an infinity of creative, novel sequences, both rational and organized, and crazy and disorganized. The idea that organisers (including computers) are only meant to follow programs - to be straitjacketed in movement and thought - is obviously untrue. Touch the keyboard. Which key comes first? What's the program for creating any program? And there lies the secret of AGI. --- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser
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 freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of texts. That is the very essence and manifestly, the whole point, of a keyboard. Yes, the keyboard is only an instrument. But your body - and your brain - which use it, are themselves keyboards. They consist of parts which also have no fundamental behavioural organization - that can be freely combined and sequenced to create an infinity of sequences of movements and thought - dances, texts, speeches, daydreams, postures etc. In abstract logical principle, it could all be preprogrammed. But I doubt that it's possible mathematically - a program for selecting from an infinity of possibilities? And it would be engineering madness - like trying to preprogram a particular way of playing music, when an infinite repertoire is possible and the environment, (in this case musical culture), is changing and evolving with bewildering and unpredictable speed. To look at computers as what they are (are you disputing this?) - machines for creating programs first, and following them second, is a radically different way of looking at computers. It also fits with radically different approaches to DNA - moving away from the idea of DNA as coded program, to something that can be, as it obviously can be, played like a keyboard - see Dennis Noble, The Music of Life. It fits with the fact (otherwise inexplicable) that all intelligences have both deliberate (creative) and automatic (routine) levels - and are not just automatic, like purely programmed computers. And it fits with the way computers are actually used and programmed, rather than the essentially fictional notion of them as pure turing machines. 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 that directly addresses that problem - are you? 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 to refer simply to that which we humans do, which in essence says general intelligence is what we humans do. Unfortunately, I found this last email to be quite muddled. Actually, I am sympathetic to a lot of your ideas, Mike, but I also have to say that your tone is quite condescending. There are a lot of smart people on this list, as one would expect, and a little humility and respect on your part would go a long way. Saying things like You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them. More often than not you position yourself as the sole source of enlightened wisdom on AI and other subjects, and that does not make me want to get to know your ideas any better. Sorry to veer off topic here, but I say these things because I think some of your ideas are valid and could really benefit from an adjustment in your presentation of them, and yourself. If I didn't think you had anything worthwhile to say, I wouldn't bother. Terren --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:42 PM Terren's request for new metaphors/paradigms for intelligence threw me temporarily off course.Why a new one - why not the old one? The computer. But the whole computer. You see, AI-ers simply don't understand computers, or understand only half of them What I'm doing here is what I said philosophers do - outline existing paradigms and point out how they lack certain essential dimensions. When AI-ers look at a computer, the paradigm that they impose on it is that of a Turing machine - a programmed machine, a device for following programs. 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 they have that Turing machines don't. See it? Terren? They have - a keyboard. 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 front?] There is not and never has been a program that wasn't first created on a keyboard. Indisputable fact. Almost everything
