Can you remind me which of your papers discusses "causets"? I don't remember them from the stuff of yours that I read before...
I think I understand causality as the concept is used in physics. The most compelling use of the concept is in special relativity theory, with light cones and such Quantum mechanics certainly has no use for causality By and large I think causality can be thought of as "temporal precedence, plus conditional probability, plus existence of a plausible causal mechanism as judged by a particular mind"..... Roughly "existence of a plausible causal mechanism" seems to come down to analogical reasoning based on what actions the mind itself feels itself as being able to do. For instance, we feel a boulder knocking into a tree is a plausible causal mechanism for knocking down the tree, because we can imagine ourselves in the position of the boulder, knocking down the tree... So I see temporal precedence and probability as somewhat foundational, and the *feeling* of subjectively impelling/willing something as somewhat foundational -- but the assignation of causation to observed events as a derived, conjectural, psychological thing, rather than something foundational to base a theory of mind upon... A difference in our approaches is that I tend to begin with phenomenology rather than physics. I tend to view the "physical world" as a model that the mind builds up to explain certain subjective observations in its memory. Whereas you seem to take this particular model as the foundational starting point... ben g On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/303/212726-11ac2389 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
