Hi,
What I think is that the set of patterns in perceptual and motoric data
has
radically different statistical properties than the set of patterns in
linguistic and mathematical data ... and that the properties of the set
of
patterns in perceptual and motoric data is intrinsically
Also, relatedly and just as critically, the set of perceptions regarding
the body and its interactions with the environment, are well-structured to
give the mind a sense of its own self. This primitive infantile sense of
body-self gives rise to the more sophisticated phenomenal self of the
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
That's if you aim at getting an AGI that is intelligent in the real world. I
think some people on this list (incl Ben perhaps) might argue that for now -
for safety purposes but also due to costs - it might be better to build an
AGI that is intelligent in a simulated environment.
Ppl like Ben
That sounds like a useful purpose. Yeh, I don't believe in fast and quick
methods either.. but also humans tend to overestimate their own
capabilities, so it will probably take more time than predicted.
On 9/3/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/28 Valentina Poletti [EMAIL
On 8/31/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Protective mechanisms to restrict their thinking and action will only
make things WORSE.
Vlad, this was my point in the control e-mail, I didn't express it quite as
clearly, partly because coming from a different background I use a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vlad, this was my point in the control e-mail, I didn't express it quite as
clearly, partly because coming from a different background I use a slightly
different language.
Also, Steve made another good point here:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it is. Systems with different sensory channels will never fully
understand each other. I'm not saying that one channel (verbal) can
replace another (visual), but that both of them (and many others) can
give
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, relatedly and just as critically, the set of perceptions regarding
the body and its interactions with the environment, are well-structured to
give the mind a sense of its own self. This primitive infantile sense of
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
I agree with Pei in that a robot's experience is not necessarily more real
than that of a, say, web-embedded agent - if anything it is closer to the *
human* experience of the world. But who knows how limited our own sensory
experience is anyhow. Perhaps a better intelligence would comprehend the
Great articles!
On 9/4/08, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey gang...
It's Likely That Times Are Changing
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35992/title/It%E2%80%99s_Likely_That_Times_Are_Changing
A century ago, mathematician Hermann Minkowski famously merged space with
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
Obviously you didn't consider the potential a laptop has with its
network connection, which in theory can give it all kinds of
perception by connecting it to some input/output device.
yes, that's true ... I was considering the laptop w/ only a power cable as
the AI system in question. Of
OK, then the observable universe has a finite description length. We don't
need to describe anything else to model it, so by universe I mean only the
observable part.
But, what good is it to only have finite description of the observable
part, since new portions of the universe enter the
Hi Pei,
I think your point is correct that the notion of embodiment presented by
Brooks and some other roboticists is naive. I'm not sure whether their
actual conceptions are naive, or whether they just aren't presenting their
foundational philosophical ideas clearly in their writings (being
However, could you guys be more specific regarding the statistical
differences of different types of data? What kind of differences are you
talking about specifically (mathematically)? And what about the differences
at the various levels of the dual-hierarchy? Has any of your work or
On 9/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, could you guys be more specific regarding the statistical
differences of different types of data? What kind of differences are you
talking about specifically (mathematically)? And what about the differences
at the various levels of
To clarify what I mean by observable universe, I am including any part that
could be observed in the future, and therefore must be modeled to make accurate
predictions. For example, if our universe is computed by one of an enumeration
of Turing machines, then the other enumerations are outside
So in short you are saying that the main difference between I/O data by
a motor embodyed system (such as robot or human) and a laptop is the ability
to interact with the data: make changes in its environment to systematically
change the input?
Not quite ... but, to interact w/ the data in a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To clarify what I mean by observable universe, I am including any part that
could be observed in the future, and therefore must be modeled to make
accurate predictions. For example, if our universe is computed by one of an
Hi Ben,
You may have stated this explicitly in the past, but I just want to clarify -
you seem to be suggesting that a phenomenological self is important if not
critical to the actualization of general intelligence. Is this your belief, and
if so, can you provide a brief justification of
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ppl like Ben argue that the concept/engineering aspect of intelligence is
independent of the type of environment. That is, given you understand how
to make it in a virtual environment you can then tarnspose that concept
into a real
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:
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my only remaining objection is that while the universe
*could* be
computable, it seems unwise to me to totally rule out the
alternative.
You're right. We cannot prove that the universe is computable. We have evidence
like Occam's
Abram,
Thanks for reply. But I don't understand what you see as the connection. An
interaction machine from my brief googling is one which has physical organs.
Any factory machine can be thought of as having organs. What I am trying to
forge is a new paradigm of a creative, free machine as
Mike,
Thanks for the reference to Dennis Noble, he sounds very interesting and his
views on Systems Biology as expressed on his Wikipedia page are perfectly in
line with my own thoughts and biases.
I agree in spirit with your basic criticisms regarding current AI and
creativity. However, it
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TITLE: Embodiment: Who does not have a body?
AUTHOR: Pei Wang
ABSTRACT: In the context of AI, ``embodiment''
should not be
interpreted as ``giving the system a body'', but as
``adapting to the
system's experience''. Therefore, being
A closed model is one that is interpreted as representing all truths
about that which is modeled. An open model is instead interpreted as
making a specific set of assertions, and leaving the rest undecided.
Formally, we might say that a closed model is interpreted to include
all of the truths, so
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
In a closed model, every statement is either true or false. In an open model,
every statement is either true or uncertain. In reality, all statements are
uncertain, but we have a means to assign them probabilities (not necessarily
accurate probabilities).
A closed model is unrealistic, but an
Matt,
My intention here is that there is a basic level of well-defined,
crisp models which probabilities act upon; so in actuality the
system will never be using a single model, open or closed...
(in a hurry now, more comments later)
--Abram
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL
Matt,
I'm confused here. What I mean is that in real life, the probabilities are
mathematically incalculable, period, a good deal of the time - you cannot
go, as you v. helpfully point out, much beyond saying this is fairly
probable, may happen, there's some chance.. And those words are
Mike,
standard Bayesianism somewhat accounts for this-- exact-number
probabilities are defined by the math, but in no way are they seen as
the real probability values. A subjective prior is chosen, which
defines all further probabilities, but that prior is not believed to
be correct. Subsequent
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Pei in that a robot's experience is not necessarily more real
than that of a, say, web-embedded agent - if anything it is closer to the
human experience of the world. But who knows how limited our own
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And as a matter of scientific, historical fact, computers are first
and foremost keyboards - i.e.devices for CREATING programs on
keyboards, - and only then following them. [Remember how AI gets
almost everything about intelligence back to
Abram,
Thanks. V. helpful and interesting. Yes, on further examination, these
interactionist guys seem, as you say, to be trying to take into account the
embeddedness of the computer.
But no, there's still a huge divide between them and me. I would liken them
in the context of this
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Terren Suydam wrote:
Thus is creativity possible while preserving determinism. Of course,
you still need to have an explanation for how creativity emerges in
either case, but in contrast to what you said before, some AI folks
have indeed worked on this issue.
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
I think this is a good important point. I've been groping confusedly
here. It seems to me computation necessarily involves the idea of
using a code (?). But the nervous system seems to me something
capable of functioning without a code -
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And what I am asserting is a paradigm of a creative machine, which
starts as, and is, NON-algorithmic and UNstructured in all its
activities, albeit that it acquires and creates a multitude of
algorithms, or
routines/structures, for *parts*
On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
And how to produce creativity is the central problem of AGI -
completely unsolved. So maybe a new approach/paradigm is worth at
least considering rather than more of the same? I'm not aware of a
single idea from any AGI-er past or present
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Do you honestly think that you write programs in a programmed way?
That it's not an *art* pace Matt, full of hesitation, halts,
meandering, twists and turns, dead ends, detours etc? If you have
to have some sort of program to start with, how
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that a keyboard and touchpad do provide proprioceptive input,
but I think it's too feeble, and too insensitively respondent to changes in
the environment and the relation btw the laptop and the environment, to
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
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
A closed model is unrealistic, but an open model is even more
unrealistic because you lack a means of assigning likelihoods to
statements like the sun will rise tomorrow or the world will end
tomorrow. You absolutely must have a means of
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Another aspect of embodiment (as the term is commonly used), is the
false appearance of intelligence. We associate intelligence with
humans, given that there are no other examples. So giving an AI a
face or a robotic body modeled after a human
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Abram Demski wrote:
My intention here is that there is a basic level of well-defined,
crisp models which probabilities act upon; so in actuality the
system will never be using a single model, open or closed...
I think Mike's model is one more of approach,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Pei,
I think your point is correct that the notion of embodiment presented by
Brooks and some other roboticists is naive. I'm not sure whether their
actual conceptions are naive, or whether they just aren't presenting
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
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The paper seems to argue that embodiment applies to any system with inputs
and outputs, and therefore all AI systems are embodied.
No. It argues that since every system has inputs and outputs,
'embodiment', as a non-trivial
Abram,
I agree with the spirit of your post, and I even go further to include
being open in my working definition of intelligence --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.logic_intelligence.pdf
I also agree with your comment on Solomonoff induction and Bayesian prior.
However, I talk about
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
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
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
A closed model is unrealistic, but an open model is
even more
unrealistic because you lack a means of assigning
likelihoods to
statements like the sun will rise tomorrow
or the
Bryan,
How do you know the brain has a code? Why can't it be entirely
impression-istic - a system for literally forming, storing and associating
sensory impressions (including abstracted, simplified, hierarchical
impressions of other impressions)?
1). FWIW some comments from a cortically
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
Pei,
I sympathize with your care in wording, because I'm very aware of the
strange meaning that the word model takes on in formal accounts of
semantics. While a cognitive scientist might talk about a person's
model of the world, a logician would say that the world is a model
of a first-order
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]
58 matches
Mail list logo
