Ben, you answered in bulk, and you are still ignoring important facts. And you are barking at the wrong tree.
BEN SAID> The mathematics of EI is pleasant enough, though my poset-theory-expert friend commented that it largely consists of stuff that poset theorists know already... SERGIO REPLIES> Alright, I'll check on that and report later. Everything that applies to posets applies also to causets. But the converse is not true. There are facts that apply to causets but not to posets. EI is one example. The difference is in the Turing halting problem. Causets always halt, posets may not. I don't know if your expert friend noticed this tiny detail. BTW, "largely" is not good enough. The devil is in the details. BEN SAID> Yeah, just as birds define flying... right... ;p SERGIO REPLIES> Centuries ago, anyone who thought about flight thought abot birds, or about throwing a rock. Today, anyone who thinks aboput intelligence thinks about the brain. There are notions such as intelligence, meaning, emotions, that just can not be defined without a reference to the brain. Just check repeated but failed attempts by "experts." BEN SAID> I don't remember what a "causet" is, but if I replace it with "packets of information" then the above statements seem obvious. SERGIO REPLIES> Good. You are touching a critical point. The statements in their short form apply equally well to causets or packets of information. However, information on arrival to the retina, or to a camera, is causal, and the retina responds in a causal way. If you capture only a "packet of information" that disregards causality, you are leaving information behind. This is the core reason why experts in image recognition have failed for decades to recognize images. The type of causal info they leave behind corresponds, precisely, to grounding and embodiment. Surprise? BEN SAID> I don't find the notion of causation particularly useful in a scientific context, it strikes me as mainly a "folk psychology" concept, like "free will" ... SERGIO REPLIES> Really? You haven't convinced me that you know or care to know much about causality (or causation). You have a mental loop: causation is not useful, so why bother to learn about it, but then you don't know how causation is useful. You are not listening, Ben. I am telling you in a loud voice, causation is of the essence. Do not throw it away! BEN SAID> But its importance for AI or neural modeling is a different story, which I don't yet buy into... SERGIO REPLIES> You will. BEN SAID> I don't think poset theory "looks like the brain" very much at all. SERGIO REPLIES> That's possibly correct. And that's why I am not using poset theory. BEN SAID> If I had to pick a branch of math to cite in this context -- Nonlinear dynamical systems theory looks a lot more like the brain, and has a lot more demonstrated use for modeling brain function. Look at Izhikevich's book on the geometry of biologically realistic neural nets, for example. SERGIO REPLIES> Good pick. Did I ever say that causets exhibit the properties of nonlinear dynamical systems? They have emergence and self-organization, they have attractors, butterfly effect, deterministic chaos, potential wells with energy levels... just to mention a few. This is for causet+functional, causets are mathematical, but Physics enters via the functional, and suddenly causets behave just like nonlinear dynamical systems. BTW, I am about to post a statement about data structures and representations, where I emphasize how a Physicist and a Mathematician think differently about information. It will not be addressed to you, but please read it. BEN SAID> From my perspective, since I genuinely think I *am* (on a plausible path to AGI), it would be irresponsible for me to hide in a hole and shut up about it ;) SERGIO REPLIES> Please don't shut up, but you also need to listen more. You are an honest man. I believe I am too, and I am bothered you don't seem to trust me in the least. You don't have to, but then you have to check for yourself. Sergio -----Original Message----- From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:17 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Visual Alphabet > Still, you are ignoring a number of facts: > 1. The brain is the only known "intelligent" system. This defines > intelligence. Yeah, just as birds define flying... right... ;p > 2. Sensory organs generate causets and feed them to afferent nerves > and the brain. > 3. Muscles receive causets from brain/efferent nerves. > 4. Unless you believe in magic, or in what Kauffman says about Quantum > Mechanics in the brain, or something else, the brain is a complex > causal physical system. Physics envy or not. > 5. Causal systems have properties. For example, they can learn (grow). > It is not wise to dismiss these properties as "not fundamental." I don't remember what a "causet" is, but if I replace it with "packets of information" then the above statements seem obvious I don't find the notion of causation particularly useful in a scientific context, it strikes me as mainly a "folk psychology" concept, like "free will" ... > 6. EI is a new type of inference. It is inference because it allows > one to derive new facts from known facts. It is not wise to disregard > EI because "I" am or am not well informed. What does "I" have to do with EI? > 7. EI does not linearize anything. It dissipates energy, which is > something all physical systems can do, even the brain. > 8. EI is not heuristic. > 9. EI is a function that maps from a countably infinite set to > another, the set of "raw" causets, as they come in from sensors or > senses, broken into tiny pieces, to the set of "organized" causets. > Actually the two sets are the same, they are the same causets, but the organization is a new fact. The mathematics of EI is pleasant enough, though my poset-theory-expert friend commented that it largely consists of stuff that poset theorists know already, explained using eccentric terminology... But its importance for AI or neural modeling is a different story, which I don't yet buy into... > 10. 2-9 look a lot like the brain. Certainly more than any other type > of inference that we know. I don't think poset theory "looks like the brain" very much at all. If I had to pick a branch of math to cite in this context -- Nonlinear dynamical systems theory looks a lot more like the brain, and has a lot more demonstrated use for modeling brain function. Look at Izhikevich's book on the geometry of biologically realistic neural nets, for example > The reason why chemists can design chemicals, or aeronautical > engineers can design aircraft, is because they understand the principles of their science. > And once they understand the principles, they can use them in > ingenious and creative ways. Otherwise it would be alchemy of kite > flying. AGI does not have a principle. This does not mean that > "anything goes." It only means that AGI needs a principle, and we all > ought to be trying to find it. Only then will we be able to engineer intelligent systems. Chemistry and biology don't have simple, elegant unifying principles in the sense that physics does. They have multiple principles on various levels with various levels of certitude.... I suspect the science of intelligence will be the same way. And we are gradually building those principles as we do AGI and cognitive science. There will be no "quick fix", no simple elegant set of mathematical principles of intelligence that lets you formulaically design an AGI system on the back of an envelope. > Ben, it seems you still don't understand EI, and/or don't believe that > EI is inference, and is new. Just look no further than my section on > Small Systems in my paper. Any sensible person, particularly one who > is searching for machine intelligence, should be wondering how did > that happen, and what can one do with it. I read that, and I really don't see what those mathematical games have to say about general intelligence.... >I am sorry if I am hurting your interests, but I already warned months >ago about the responsibility of claiming AGI. If this one fails, there >may not be another for a long time. The only way you're "hurting my interests" is by occupying a small fraction of my time on a not-so-productive email thread... ;p Regarding "claiming AGI" --- nobody sane that I know is claiming to have created AGI. Claiming to be on a plausible path to AGI is a different thing. From your standpoint, since you think I'm doomed to fail due to my not embracing the cosmic truth of EI, I guess it's unfortunate that I claim to be on a plausible path to AGI. From my perspective, since I genuinely think I *am*, it would be irresponsible for me to hide in a hole and shut up about it ;) -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; d2 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/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
