On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, generalities among different instances of complex systems have
been identified, see for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants
To be sure, but there are also plenty of complex systems
That may be true, but it misses the point I was making, which was a response to
Richard's lament about the seeming lack of any generality from one complex
system to the next. The fact that Feigenbaum's constants describe complex
systems of different kinds is remarkable because it suggests an
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My scepticism comes mostly from my personal observation that each complex
systems scientist I come across tends to know about one breed of complex
system, and have a great deal to say about that breed, but when I come
Nevertheless, generalities among different instances of complex systems have
been identified, see for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants
Terren
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My scepticism comes mostly from my
Richard,
Thanks for your comments. Very interesting. I'm looking forward to reading the
introductory book by Waldrop. Thanks again!
Cheers,
Brad
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard,
I think I'll get the older Waldrop book now because I want to learn
more about the
, though. I should be
careful not to prejudge something so young.
Richard Loosemore
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 9
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard,
I think I'll get the older Waldrop book now because I want to learn more
about the ideas surrounding complexity (and, in particular, its
association with, and differentiation from, chaos theory) as soon as
possible. But, I will definitely put an entry in my
... thanks for your post Richard.
Terren
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 9:23 PM
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard,
I
Richard,
I presume this is the Waldrop Complexity book to which you referred:
Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 1992, $10.20 (new, paperback) from Amazon (used
copies also available)
Or, maybe...
Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos
Roger Lewin, 2000 $10.88 (new, paperback) from Amazon (no used copies)
Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin (Paperback - Feb 15, 2000)
Brad
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore Jim,
I'm sorry:
in the future that you would
like to discuss this with me please let me know.
Jim Bromer
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:13:01 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
Jim Bromer wrote:
From: Richard
Brad:
I presume this is the Waldrop Complexity book to which you referred:
Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 1992, $10.20 (new, paperback) from Amazon (used
copies also available)
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard,
I presume this is the Waldrop Complexity book to which you referred:
Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 1992, $10.20 (new, paperback) from Amazon (used
copies also available)
Jim Bromer wrote:
Richard Loosemore said:
With the greatest of respect, this is a topic that will require some
extensive background reading on your part, because the misunderstandings
in your above test are too deep for me to remedy in the scope of one or
two list postings. For example, my
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Or, maybe...
Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos
Roger Lewin, 2000 $10.88 (new, paperback) from Amazon (no used copies)
Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin (Paperback - Feb
15, 2000)
Nope, not that one either!
Darn.
I think it may have been Simplexity
Mike Tintner wrote:
Brad:
I presume this is the Waldrop Complexity book to which you referred:
Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 1992, $10.20 (new, paperback) from Amazon (used
copies also available)
Richard,
I think I'll get the older Waldrop book now because I want to learn more about
the ideas surrounding complexity (and, in particular, its association with, and
differentiation from, chaos theory) as soon as possible. But, I will definitely
put an entry in my Google calendar to keep a
Richard wrote:
Interestingly enough, Melanie Mitchell has a book due out in 2009
called The Core Ideas of the Sciences of Complexity. Interesting
title, given my thoughts in the last post.
Thanks for the tip, Richard! I like her book on CopyCat, and I'd
heard she had been doing complexity
Abram Demski wrote:
Ah, so you do not accept AIXI either.
Goodness me, no ;-). As far as I am concerned, AIXI is a mathematical
formalism with loaded words like 'intelligence' attached to it, and then
the formalism is taken as being about the real things in the world (i.e.
intelligent
From: Richard Loosemore Jim,
I'm sorry: I cannot make any sense of what you say here.
I don't think you are understanding the technicalities of the argument I
am presenting, because your very first sentence... But we can invent a
'mathematics' or a program that can is just completely
Jim Bromer wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore Jim,
I'm sorry: I cannot make any sense of what you say here.
I don't think you are understanding the technicalities of the argument I
am presenting, because your very first sentence... But we can invent a
'mathematics' or a program that can is
Jim Bromer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore Jim,
I'm sorry: I cannot make any sense of what you say here.
I don't think you are understanding the technicalities of the argument I
am presenting, because your very first sentence... But we can invent a
'mathematics'
Ah, so you do not accept AIXI either.
Put this way, your complex system dilemma applies only to pure AGI,
and not to any narrow AI attempts, no matter how ambitious. But I
suppose other, totally different reasons (such as P != NP, if so) can
block those.
Is this the best way to understand your
to discover the pseudo-elements (or relative elements) of the system
relative to the features of the problem.
Jim Bromer
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:02:31 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations
Jim Bromer wrote:
Loosemore said: But now ... suppose, ... that there do not exist ANY
3-sex cellular automata in which there are emergent patterns
equivalent to the glider and glider gun. ...Conway ... can search
through the entire space of 3-sex automata..., and he will never
build a system
It seems as if we are beginning to talk past eachother. I think the
problem may be that we have different implicit conceptions of the sort
of AI being constructed. My implicit conception is that of an
optimization problem. The AI is given the challenge of formulating the
best response to its input
Richard,
If I can make a guess at where Jim is coming from:
Clearly, intelligent systems CAN be produced. Assuming we can define
intelligent system well enough to recognize it, we can generate systems at
random until one is found. That is impractical, however. So, we can look at
the
already been written about, it would
sure be nice to fast-forward over past writings.
Steve Richfield
=
- Original Message
From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:53:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations
Abram Demski wrote:
It seems as if we are beginning to talk past eachother. I think the
problem may be that we have different implicit conceptions of the sort
of AI being constructed. My implicit conception is that of an
optimization problem. The AI is given the challenge of formulating the
best
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard,
If I can make a guess at where Jim is coming from:
Clearly, intelligent systems CAN be produced. Assuming we can
define intelligent system well enough to recognize it, we can
generate systems at random until one is found. That is impractical,
however. So, we can
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore Jim,
I'm sorry: I cannot make any sense of what you say here.
I don't think you are understanding the technicalities of the argument I
am presenting, because your very first sentence... But we can invent a
'mathematics' or a program that
On 6/23/08, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or it could simply mean that the vast majority of programmers and software
monkeys are mediocre at best such that the handful of people you will meet
with deep talent won't constitute a useful sample size. Hell, even Brooks
suggested as
, 2008 10:53:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
Andy,
This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular point
of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real world we do
certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design
And Abram said,
A revised version of my argument would run something like this. As the
approximation problem gets more demanding, it gets more difficult to
devise logical heuristics. Increasingly, we must rely on intuitions
tested by experiments. There then comes a point when making the
I'm still not really satisfied, though, because I would personally
stop at the stage when the heuristic started to get messy, and say,
The problem is starting to become AI-complete, so at this point I
should include a meta-level search to find a good heuristic for me,
rather than trying to
Abram Demski wrote:
I'm still not really satisfied, though, because I would personally
stop at the stage when the heuristic started to get messy, and say,
The problem is starting to become AI-complete, so at this point I
should include a meta-level search to find a good heuristic for me,
rather
Abram Demski wrote:
To be honest, I am not completely satisfied with my conclusion on the
post you refer to. I'm not so sure now that the fundamental split
between logical/messy methods should occur at the line between perfect
approximate methods. This is one type of messiness, but one only. I
- Original Message
From: Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:38:02 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
Well, since you found my blog, you probably are grouping me somewhat
with the probability buffs. I have stated that I
Thanks for the comments. My replies:
It does happen to be the case that I
believe that logic-based methods are mistaken, but I could be wrong about
that, and it could turn out that the best way to build an AGI is with a
completely logic-based AGI, along with just one small mechanism that
should work, or the way AI programs and research into AI
should work?
Jim Bromer
- Original Message
From: Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
Thanks for the comments. My replies
Abram Demski wrote:
Thanks for the comments. My replies:
It does happen to be the case that I
believe that logic-based methods are mistaken, but I could be wrong about
that, and it could turn out that the best way to build an AGI is with a
completely logic-based AGI, along with just one
Jim Bromer wrote:
Loosemore said,
It is very important to understand that the paper I wrote was about the
methodology of AGI research, not about specific theories/models/systems
within AGI. It is about the way that we come up with ideas for systems
and the way that we explore those systems,
Andy,
This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular
point of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real
world we do certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design
politically correct AGIs, we banish the very logic that allows us to
On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Steve Richfield wrote:
Andy,
The use of diminutives is considered rude in many parts of anglo-
culture if the individual does not use it to identify themselves,
though I realize it is common practice in some regions of the US. When
in doubt, use the given
Abram Demski said:
To be honest, I am not completely satisfied with my conclusion on the
post you refer to. I'm not so sure now that the fundamental split
between logical/messy methods should occur at the line between perfect
approximate methods. This is one type of messiness, but one only. I
On 6/21/08, I wrote:
The major problem I have is that writing a really really complicated computer
program is really really difficult.
--
Steve Richfield replied:
Jim,
The ONLY rational approach to this (that I know of) is to construct an engine
that develops
Well, since you found my blog, you probably are grouping me somewhat
with the probability buffs. I have stated that I will not be
interested in any other fuzzy logic unless it is accompanied by a
careful account of the meaning of the numbers.
You have stated that it is unrealistic to expect a
Jim,
On 6/22/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A compiler may be a useful tool to use in an advanced AI program (just as
we all use compilers in our programming), but I don't feel that a compiler
is a good basis for or a good metaphor for advanced AI.
A compiler is just another
Steve:Most of my working career has been as a genuine consultant (and not just
an unemployed programmer). I am typically hired by a major investor. My
specialty is resurrecting projects that are in technological trouble. At the
heart of the most troubled projects. I typically find either a
Abram
I am pressed for time right now, but just to let you know that, now that
I am aware of your post, I will reply soon. I think that many of your
concerns are a result of seeing a different message in the paper than
the one I intended.
Richard Loosemore
Abram Demski wrote:
To be
On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Steve Richfield wrote:
At the heart of the most troubled projects. I typically find either
a born-again Christian or a PhD Chemist. These people make the same
bad decisions from faith. The Christian's faith is that God wouldn't
lead them SO astray, so
: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge
Well, since you found my blog, you probably are grouping me somewhat
with the probability buffs. I have stated that I will not be
interested in any other fuzzy logic unless it is accompanied by a
careful account of the meaning of the numbers.
You have stated
Jim,
On 6/21/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major problem I have is that writing a really really complicated
computer program is really really difficult.
The ONLY rational approach to this (that I know of) is to construct an
engine that develops and applies machine knowledge,
To be honest, I am not completely satisfied with my conclusion on the
post you refer to. I'm not so sure now that the fundamental split
between logical/messy methods should occur at the line between perfect
approximate methods. This is one type of messiness, but one only. I
think you are
Abram,
A useful midpoint between views is to decide what knowledge must distill
down to, to be able to relate it together and do whatever you want to do. I
did this with Dr. Eliza and realized that I had to have a column in my DB
that contained what people typically say to indicate the presence
55 matches
Mail list logo
