Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Vladimir, On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may reflect an underlying belief that isn't truly held, but who cares what the neurons/transistors are doing when all externally observable evidence is that they DO hold sometimes superstitious beliefs. If you have to perform some action, and all you've got is a guess, you act on it, nothing better can be done. But at least you make the best of information that you can get your sensors on. My favorite is people who fall into the thought-trap and say but, I had no choice There are few binary decisions in life, as there are almost always nonlinear approaches. Sometimes the decision NOT to choose either of the two obvious paths is based more on uncertainty than on information. Suppose that I gave you a choice of two paths to proceed on, and I informed you that one of them had a hidden land mine on it. The one on the right appears to be a short cut. Which one would you choose - the one to the right, or the one to the left - or would you simply refuse to play this dangerous game? Also, I fail to see how Beyesian approaches will disfavor religious beliefs, as religious beliefs are absolutely perfect explainers, and hence will float to the top of probabilities once you roll in observation errors that will reduce all other probabilities. A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two. God hypothesis is as useful as a coin flip in its power to detect the facts. A weak theory, on the other hand, that says zebra! only in 0.09% of cases when the track is zebra's, and in 0.08% of cases when it's not zebra's, is much better. Hmm, if I remember my math from long ago... To distinguish between these two rates would take ~10^8 observations - probably more than anyone would get in a lifetime. Until then, you would go with the best explanation that is available, namely, that an unseen power (maybe God, or maybe just superstition in the mind of the zebras) is controlling this. In any case, the travels of zebras is almost certainly NOT random. Further, our ability to observe God's actions and form statistics thereon in no way diminishes the prospects of God existing. We could at once have a slight advantage as you describe, but also believe that this is all the result of observing divine action based on things we know nothing about, and hence could change at any time without our knowledge. How many consecutive zebras would you have to see to decide that the God explanation is more likely than your statistical predictor? I suspect that somewhere along the way to 10^8 observations, that you would accidentally see enough zebras that even you might start to become religious. In a very real and logical sense, atheism is a MUCH more radical belief system than is most religions, because it requires you to REJECT the most obvious explanation despite obvious evidence supporting it. It is unclear (to me) how it is that a future AGI is to make this leap of non-faith. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Mike, On 4/24/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving much the current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung out.My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and direct effort to the missing pieces. You're right that creativity, small and large, is at the centre of AGI. But I've never met an AGI-er who really does want to wring it out - even say Minsky. Because the conclusion is painful. And that's that a program can only do so much. It can't normally identify the missing pieces in creative problems. Much of my working career has been as a high-tech consultant of last resort - someone that an investor brings into a failing company just before pulling the plug. Since in a real sense I must compete creatively with those who preceded me - and who probably know more about the problem domain than I do, I have had to develop a general approach to creativity in these situations. The one that seems to work best is to set about proving that there is no solution, and somewhere along the way to a proof there will emerge an insurmountable gap that points the way to a solution. The main way science does that - and science surely has to be a major paradigm of creativity - is, in part, by scientists going out into the field, and collecting fresh observations, and performing new tests, (and even touching and talking to patients). You have to, of course, if you're trying to be creative and discover something, look for new kinds of evidence and perform new kinds of experiments, But there is no substitute for going into the field. You can't just do it in the computer room, or study. And you can't just direct others, from the comfort of your computational armchair, to look for you. Actually this is fundamental to most artistic and historical discovery. And it's fundamental to technological creativity. You do have to play around with those pieces of metal and get hands-on experience. YES. One of my technical interests is longevity. Most people in this field never see anyone with gray hair! Most of my advances came from working with elderly people who were up against age-related disorders, and finding that many of the assumptions that researchers were working on were just plain wrong. Only ~1% of older people actually die from aging. The rest die of something else. My own work has been in observing and later in correcting the consistencies in the things that are actually killing older people. If you're trying to market some new product, it's vital to go out and talk to potential customers. Or are you suggesting that scientific, artistic, historical, technological business creativity can be entirely programmed? And AGI-ers needn't talk to investors? There is SUCH a gap between the mind of an AGIer and the mind of an investor, that I doubt that anything but suspicion could be communicated. (You do realise, also, that the history of human creativity is the story of endless resistance to going out into the field and on location. Natural philosophers, for example, had to be dragged out kicking and screaming by Bacon, before they became scientists. And this has been repeated in field after field. Computer chairs are so comfy). I hadn't thought about or realized this. THIS is a VERY significant statement. This suggests an appropriate caveat right at the front of any prospectus or proposal, to guide investment money away from other proposals and hopefully to the one in hand. for example: Longevity: Investments in research efforts that do NOT involve working with elderly people to solve their real-world problems that are relevant to the research, at best can only result in elegant solutions to non-problems. AGI: RD investments must target the markets and technology of 5-10 years in the future to produce the large and solid profits that investors now expect. Computer technology has now proceeded to the point that human-like capability should be expected from new investments, yet this is not yet available in off-the-shelf software. Hence we plan to perform some actual research (currently rare for RD efforts) to more accurately target the future market that our competitors will be doomed to miss because of their lack of research. Is this the sort of message that you think needs to be conveyed? Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Steve, Yes it's good to acknowledge that you recognize the importance of in-the-field investigation and hands-on experimentation to creative problem-solving. But you have yet - and, as you more or less indicate, everyone in AI and AGI - has yet to show me (or, I think, the world), that they have gone any way to producing a general/creative intelligence. For example, how is it going to be able to completely redefine the problem - a fairly standard requirement for an awful lot of creativity - say in relation to disease-diagnosis. How is it going to have the capacity to question whether what looks like the result of a potential virus, may actually be due to lifestyle, and life style in a sense that no one has yet defined it? (I'm being really cussed here :) but it's valid) How is it going to have the imagination to conceive of an altogether new kind of invasive organism, or a standard organism behaving in a way never thought of before? How is it going to be able to say - wait a minute, what if neuronal memory works something like that funny metal that can remember its old shape when heated? A truly creative program is an AWESOMELY hard problem. Just getting a basically adaptive program that pace Ben's could develop something like hide-and-seek independently, after learning to fetch, is hard enough - or a maze-running creature that could, say, learn to climb over maze walls and not just run round them.. Mike, On 4/24/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve:What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving much the current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung out.My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and direct effort to the missing pieces. You're right that creativity, small and large, is at the centre of AGI. But I've never met an AGI-er who really does want to wring it out - even say Minsky. Because the conclusion is painful. And that's that a program can only do so much. It can't normally identify the missing pieces in creative problems. Much of my working career has been as a high-tech consultant of last resort - someone that an investor brings into a failing company just before pulling the plug. Since in a real sense I must compete creatively with those who preceded me - and who probably know more about the problem domain than I do, I have had to develop a general approach to creativity in these situations. The one that seems to work best is to set about proving that there is no solution, and somewhere along the way to a proof there will emerge an insurmountable gap that points the way to a solution. The main way science does that - and science surely has to be a major paradigm of creativity - is, in part, by scientists going out into the field, and collecting fresh observations, and performing new tests, (and even touching and talking to patients). You have to, of course, if you're trying to be creative and discover something, look for new kinds of evidence and perform new kinds of experiments, But there is no substitute for going into the field. You can't just do it in the computer room, or study. And you can't just direct others, from the comfort of your computational armchair, to look for you. Actually this is fundamental to most artistic and historical discovery. And it's fundamental to technological creativity. You do have to play around with those pieces of metal and get hands-on experience. YES. One of my technical interests is longevity. Most people in this field never see anyone with gray hair! Most of my advances came from working with elderly people who were up against age-related disorders, and finding that many of the assumptions that researchers were working on were just plain wrong. Only ~1% of older people actually die from aging. The rest die of something else. My own work has been in observing and later in correcting the consistencies in the things that are actually killing older people. If you're trying to market some new product, it's vital to go out and talk to potential customers. Or are you suggesting that scientific, artistic, historical, technological business creativity can be entirely programmed? And AGI-ers needn't talk to investors? There is SUCH a gap between the mind of an AGIer and the mind of an investor, that I doubt that anything but suspicion could be communicated. (You do realise, also, that the history of human creativity is the story of endless resistance to going out into the field and on location. Natural philosophers, for example, had to be dragged out kicking and screaming by Bacon, before they became scientists. And this has been repeated in field after field. Computer chairs are so comfy). I hadn't thought about or realized this. THIS is a VERY significant statement. This suggests an appropriate caveat right at the front of any prospectus or proposal, to guide investment
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two. God hypothesis is as useful as a coin flip in its power to detect the facts. A weak theory, on the other hand, that says zebra! only in 0.09% of cases when the track is zebra's, and in 0.08% of cases when it's not zebra's, is much better. Hmm, if I remember my math from long ago... To distinguish between these two rates would take ~10^8 observations - probably more than anyone would get in a lifetime. Until then, you would go with the best explanation that is available, namely, that an unseen power (maybe God, or maybe just superstition in the mind of the zebras) is controlling this. In any case, the travels of zebras is almost certainly NOT random. Yes, the Ways of Zebras do not transcend our ability to comprehend. But what are those 10^8 observations supposed to distinguish between? You can be quite certain in ability of this test without observing any zebras. You just need indirect evidence. For example, such a test can be obtained from a much better test that is right almost 100% by adding just right amount of noise. This is however not the point... -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Durk,
On 4/22/08, Kingma, D.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell (if I'm correct), your system initially requires a vast body
of knowledge. Then, you explain that its 'trick' is to use its knowledge to
solve a subject's problems, by finding out what knowledge he/she is
'missing'. This knowledge must come from the AGI database.
Yes, though there are only little differences between determining what is
missing behind the eyeballs, and divining what is probably wrong in the real
world. The two are HIGHLY coupled.
But what is the knowledge (solution) is not in the AGi's database, nor in
any human mind yet?
Your question reflects a cultural trap. Hopefully the following will help
you traverse out of it...
We have been raised in a world of diagnoses and prognoses, but in the
real world, situations tend to come in the form of dynamic cause-and-effect
chains which, in static situations, tend to look like a figure 6, with a
root cause, several subsequent links, and a self-sustaining loop at the end.
With any sort of populated DB, the system will almost certainly identify
some potential links, which will start the questioning process to sort the
potential from the actual.
So, how is your system supposed to create _novel_ solutions to problems?
What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving much the
current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung out.
My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and direct
effort to the missing pieces. While this may at first sound trivial, this
whole effort started when I spent 4 full-time months doing what a single
query should have done.
When I solve hard problems by discovering novel algorithms, my brain uses
mechanisms such as finding complex analogies, not by using anyones
pre-existing knowledge.
It is ALL pre-existing knowledge, except for that tiny part that notices an
algorithm (read that a process) that is one (of many) (probably less
than optimal) way of addressing a problem.
I think there is a confusion here between discovery (observing something
that was previously unknown), invention (finding a new way of doing
something that is desirable, using existing knowledge), and problem
solving (finding a way through the labyrinth of {mostly irrelivant}
observations to zero in on how to improve a poor situation). These need to
be separately defined in terms that are conducive to implementation.
Steve Richfield
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Mark, On 4/22/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . Our agreement on this reflects a shortcoming in the posting process. We need an organization of posts that is similar to the US Patent Office's sorting of patents, into which I would have split my post into several parts. Then, years in the future, those parts would have become threaded with other people's thoughts to become a hopefully-useful completed result. The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people. Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective Disorder effect (call it seasonal-cycle manic-depression though not quite that extreme). After many years, I recognize that I think *entirely* differently in the summer as opposed to the middle of winter. Absolutely expected with your low daytime body temperature. This is a VERY common observation from low temps (people whose temperature is stuck low). This IS easily correctable, providing a very substantial gain in IQ. Like an alcoholic, you have learned to think fairly well while considerably impaired (as I once did until corrected in 2001). The high level of mental organization needed to do this well (which you must certainly have to avoid being classified as retarded) can propel you WAY ahead of normal people, once you are playing with a full deck. Also, you will live ~20-30 years longer. Once they adopted an erroneous model and stored some information based on it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. While true in many (and possibly the majority of cases), this is nowhere near universally true. This is like saying that you can't unlearn old, bad habits. Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. No. You are conflating multiple things here. Yes, we always start learning by combination -- but then we use science to weed things out. The problem is -- most people aren't good scientists or cleaners. When you do something and observe a bad result, then do it again and observe a similar bad result, at exactly WHAT point do you conclude that this is no accident? My point is that there is NO correct answer to this question, as it is always possible to have any number of accidents that support an erroneous conclusion. Given that we have ~10^11 neurons, many of which are simultaneously forming theories, some of them are going to get it wrong. Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How are you going to keep your future AGI from becoming a religious zealot? ... then, when you have short-circuited such thoughts, it won't be able to see the value of first presuming intelligent design as a first-level approximation to what should be expected from evolution. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How are you going to keep your future AGI from becoming a religious zealot? How do I keep myself from becoming a Napoleon? It doesn't follow. Get some background in philosophy of science from Bayesian perspective on theories - and 'superstitiousness' of learning will be sorted out. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Absolutely expected with your low daytime body temperature. This is a VERY common observation from low temps (people whose temperature is stuck low). This IS easily correctable, providing a very substantial gain in IQ. Like an alcoholic, you have learned to think fairly well while considerably impaired (as I once did until corrected in 2001). The high level of mental organization needed to do this well (which you must certainly have to avoid being classified as retarded) can propel you WAY ahead of normal people, once you are playing with a full deck. Also, you will live ~20-30 years longer. OK. I'll bite. How do you fix a low temp? Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How are you going to keep your future AGI from becoming a religious zealot? That would depend upon your definition of religious zealot . . . . :-) There are a lot of benefits to rational courteous religious zealots that believe in self-determination for all. Maybe I *want* my AGI to be a religious zealot. It would certainly solve the Friendliness problem. ;-) ... then, when you have short-circuited such thoughts, it won't be able to see the value of first presuming intelligent design as a first-level approximation to what should be expected from evolution. I disagree. It seems as if your short-circuiting process has major downsides if it does such a thing. Intelligent design is a great first guess. It should just be replaced by better ideas that more accurately reflect the world. Superstitious learning is a great first guess. Then it should be replaced by better ideas that more accurately reflect the world. This process is known as science (or scientific discovery). I highly recommend it. ;-) - Original Message - From: Steve Richfield To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking... Mark, On 4/22/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . Our agreement on this reflects a shortcoming in the posting process. We need an organization of posts that is similar to the US Patent Office's sorting of patents, into which I would have split my post into several parts. Then, years in the future, those parts would have become threaded with other people's thoughts to become a hopefully-useful completed result. The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people. Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective Disorder effect (call it seasonal-cycle manic-depression though not quite that extreme). After many years, I recognize that I think *entirely* differently in the summer as opposed to the middle of winter. Absolutely expected with your low daytime body temperature. This is a VERY common observation from low temps (people whose temperature is stuck low). This IS easily correctable, providing a very substantial gain in IQ. Like an alcoholic, you have learned to think fairly well while considerably impaired (as I once did until corrected in 2001). The high level of mental organization needed to do this well (which you must certainly have to avoid being classified as retarded) can propel you WAY ahead of normal people, once you are playing with a full deck. Also, you will live ~20-30 years longer. Once they adopted an erroneous model and stored some information based on it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. While true in many (and possibly the majority of cases), this is nowhere near universally true. This is like saying that you can't unlearn old, bad habits. Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. No. You are conflating multiple things here. Yes, we always start learning by combination -- but then we use science to weed things out. The problem is -- most people aren't good scientists or cleaners. When you do something and observe a bad result, then do it again and observe a similar bad result, at exactly WHAT point do you conclude that this is no accident? My point is that there is NO correct answer to this question, as it is always possible to have any number of accidents that support an erroneous conclusion. Given that we have ~10^11 neurons, many of which are simultaneously forming theories, some of them are going to get it wrong. Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How are you going to keep your future AGI from becoming a religious zealot
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Vladimir, On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How are you going to keep your future AGI from becoming a religious zealot? How do I keep myself from becoming a Napoleon? So, what's wrong with that?! It doesn't follow. Get some background in philosophy of science from Bayesian perspective on theories - and 'superstitiousness' of learning will be sorted out. LOL! That line of thought sunk a ~decade of efforts on the Russian translator. There is the rub: Bayesian approaches teach that everything is in the probabilities, and that if you properly compute the probabilities that hopefully when everything comes together at the end, that you will have probabilities that are very near 0 or 1 that result. However, when you compute what fraction of one bit that those probabilities represent, you find that the information drops VERY fast with the loss of just a few percentage points. I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may reflect an underlying belief that isn't truly held, but who cares what the neurons/transistors are doing when all externally observable evidence is that they DO hold sometimes superstitious beliefs. When applied to making decisions as to semantic intent, the Russian translator still made enough errors that the results were unusable despite being ~95% correct. My take on this was that no one on their team had ever seen a GOOD translation, where the translation notes are typically several times the length of the translation itself. Unannotated translations are cute, but very nearly worthless unless you are just looking for the bathroom or ordering breakfast - things that if wrong are easily corrected. I was once in Saudi Arabia and had occation to talk with the member of the Metawa, their religious police and Ministry of Religion (yes, they do have such a ministry), who was in charge of converting visiting Christians. Their primary approach was to dig into whether they truly 100....% BELIEVED all of the stuff they read in the Bible. Of course not - people are Beyesian too. The Metawa would then present their own version of whatever it was that wasn't perfectly believed, in the hopes that the Muslim version would be more perfectly acceptable. In short - it was a battle of models, and any open-minded and objective evaluation, setting politics and religious belief aside, that Islam is a MUCH less bad (notice that I didn't say better) way to run a society than is Christianity, as ~98% of children live with both of their parents, etc. In short, people who are willing to accept religious models and are looking for the best religious model have some really good ones from which to choose. Also, I fail to see how Beyesian approaches will disfavor religious beliefs, as religious beliefs are absolutely perfect explainers, and hence will float to the top of probabilities once you roll in observation errors that will reduce all other probabilities. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Everyone BUT Mark, On 4/24/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely expected with your low daytime body temperature. This is a VERY common observation from low temps (people whose temperature is stuck low). This IS easily correctable, providing a very substantial gain in IQ. Like an alcoholic, you have learned to think fairly well while considerably impaired (as I once did until corrected in 2001). The high level of mental organization needed to do this well (which you must certainly have to avoid being classified as retarded) can propel you WAY ahead of normal people, once you are playing with a full deck. Also, you will live ~20-30 years longer. OK. I'll bite. How do you fix a low temp? Should I take this off-forum, or are there others here who are interested in where this thread goes? Note that low-temp has been referred to as the engineers' illness because SO many people in science and engineering have low temps. Low temp forces a high level or rigor and organization in thinking to be able to think at all, and so tends to guide low temp people into science and engineering. ... The first phase will be testing (some do-it-yourself e.g. the shower test, some laboratory e.g. getting a thyroid panel), to figure out what works and what doesn't, followed by developing a plan that is acceptable to you for traversing from you present situation to the best achievable situation, possibly in several steps. For example, you might want to first get to ~98.0F, which is probably less than half the effort to getting all the way 98.6F, and only provides ~half the benefits. Of course, everything depends on your own particular situation. Also, you might want to cruise http://www.DrRind.com that discusses only ORGANIC causes of temperature control problems and makes no recognition of central control issues. If following that lead you get to a mixed diagnosis, then that REALLY means that you probably have something other than what Dr. Rind knows about, like a central control issue. ~50% of temperature control problems are purely central control, but people with 97F temps have a 50% rate of co-morbid organic problems. Often, people first develop an organic problem, and then develop a central problem as a workaround. Of course, you must fix both of these situations to ever make it all the way to 98.6F. The fixes are usually pretty simple, but this will probably never be a one pill fixes all sort of thing. Obviously, as with all things broken, you must fix whatever is actually broken. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may reflect an underlying belief that isn't truly held, but who cares what the neurons/transistors are doing when all externally observable evidence is that they DO hold sometimes superstitious beliefs. If you have to perform some action, and all you've got is a guess, you act on it, nothing better can be done. But at least you make the best of information that you can get your sensors on. Also, I fail to see how Beyesian approaches will disfavor religious beliefs, as religious beliefs are absolutely perfect explainers, and hence will float to the top of probabilities once you roll in observation errors that will reduce all other probabilities. A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two. God hypothesis is as useful as a coin flip in its power to detect the facts. A weak theory, on the other hand, that says zebra! only in 0.09% of cases when the track is zebra's, and in 0.08% of cases when it's not zebra's, is much better. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Steve Richfield wrote: The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people. [...] [...] Any thoughts? Steve Richfield The post above -- real food for thought -- was the most interesting post that I have ever read on the AGI list. Arthur T. Murray -- http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/Mind.html http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/userman.html http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html http://mind.sourceforge.net/m4thuser.html --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking...
Any thoughts? My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . . . . The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people. Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective Disorder effect (call it seasonal-cycle manic-depression though not quite that extreme). After many years, I recognize that I think *entirely* differently in the summer as opposed to the middle of winter. Once they adopted an erroneous model and stored some information based on it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. While true in many (and possibly the majority of cases), this is nowhere near universally true. This is like saying that you can't unlearn old, bad habits. Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. No. You are conflating multiple things here. Yes, we always start learning by combination -- but then we use science to weed things out. The problem is -- most people aren't good scientists or cleaners. Certainly, no one has suggested ANY reason to believe that the great ultimate AGI of the long distant future will be immune to it. I believe that, with the ability to have it's beliefs transparent and open to inspection by itself and others, the great ultimate AGI of the near future will be able to perform scientific clean-up *much* better than you can possibly imagine. Mark - Original Message - From: Steve Richfield To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:54 PM Subject: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking... The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people. In my own case, I was mercury poisoned (which truncates neural tubes) as a baby, was fed a low/no fat diet (which impairs myelin growth), and then at the age of 5, I had my metabolism trashed by general anesthesia (causing brain fog). I have since corrected my metabolic problems, I now eat LOTS of fat, and I flushed the mercury out of my system. However, the result of all of this was dramatic - I tested beyond genius in some ways (first tested at the age of 6), and below average in others. I could solve complex puzzles at lightning speed, but had the memory of an early Alzheimer's patient. However, one thing was quite clear - whatever it was that went on behind my eyeballs was VERY different from other people. No, I don't mean better or worse than others, but completely different. My horrible memory FORCED me to resort to understanding many things that other people simply remembered, as at least for me, those understandings lasted a lifetime, while my memory would probably be gone before the sun went down. This pushed me into a complex variable-model version of reality, from which I could see that nearly everyone operated from fixed models. Once they adopted an erroneous model and stored some information based on it, they were stuck with it and its failures for the remainder of their lives. This apparently underlies most religious belief, as children explain the unknown in terms of God, and are then stuck with this long after they realize that neither God nor Santa Clause can exist as conscious entities. Superstitious learning is absolutely and theoretically unavoidable. Certainly, no one has suggested ANY reason to believe that the great ultimate AGI of the long distant future will be immune to it. Add some trusted misinformation (that we all get) and you have the makings of a system that is little better than us, other than it will have vastly superior abilities to gain superstitious learning and spout well-supported but erroneous conclusions based on it. My efforts on Dr. Eliza was to create a system that was orthogonal to our biologically-based problem solving abilities. No, it usually did NOT solve problems in the traditional way of telling the user what is broken (except in some simplistic cases where this was indeed possible), but rather it focused on just what it was that the user apparently did NOT know to have such a problem. Inform the user of whatever it is that they did not know, and their problem will evaporate through obviation - something subtly different than being solved. Of course, some of that knowledge will be wrong, but hopefully users have the good sense to skip over Steve's snake oil will cure all illnesses and consider other facts. One job I had was as the in-house computer and numerical analysis consultant for the Physics and Astronomy departments of a major university. There it gradually soaked in that the symbol manipulation of Algebra and higher mathematics itself made some subtle mis-assumptions that often led people astray. For example, if you have a value with some uncertainty (as all values do) through a function with a discontinuity (as many interesting functions have); when the range of uncertainty includes
