On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> *Is there anyone else here on this forum who groks what what Mike is >> trying to say, and can say it in a way that makes at least SOME sense? * >> > > I highly doubt it. What I think is happening, psychosomatic considerations > aside, is that quite a few people, myself and Mike included, think that you > cannot get from from math to reality and cognition without a touch of > "magic", though it is very hard to say what this magic would be. > > That is not right. Remember that Mike is saying that No AGIer (No One in this group other than himself) can understand what he is saying about the necessity for creativity in AGI. Since this is fundamentally and seriously wrong, that should give you some insight into what he is actually saying. One of the many things that is wrong with Mike's view is that he is constantly using reductionist logic to make his point and then driving it home with a mathematical entity (like infinity.) The philosophical flaw with this kind is that his point of view is based on absolutist reductions of the intangible (ie conceptual infinity must "exist" and it is something that Mike can grasp as a everyday tool of cognition.) The claim to have an absolute grasp of the intangible and declaring it as a fundamental principle (that transcends any restriction of -mathematical- classification) is an exaggeration just as the claim that no agier can understand the need for creativity in AGI. These kinds of flaws of his essential philosophical construct means that Mike can simply ignore everything that might seem to contradict his special claim on insight into the nature of AGI. What does that have to do with you? To agree with Mike's point of view you have to either deny that there is any kind of computational creativity or you have to deny that creativity is part of the magic that you mentioned. Jim Bromer On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> *Is there anyone else here on this forum who groks what what Mike is >> trying to say, and can say it in a way that makes at least SOME sense? * >> >> >> > I highly doubt it. What I think is happening, psychosomatic considerations > aside, is that quite a few people, myself and Mike included, think that you > cannot get from from math to reality and cognition without a touch of > "magic", though it is very hard to say what this magic would be. Certainly > a compressionist like Matt would say hey, all the hocus pocus is in > complexity and massive statistical power. Even though I have been an enemy > of Object Oriented Programming for a long time, I have also admitted > previously that a bit of the magic may lie in the extreme bias of > human-level cognition for objects/entities/individuals/notions. We are > extremely good (to a fault) at recognizing the "boundaries" of an organism > we are looking at, the organs in a piece of music, and all kinds of things > in a huge problem space, and that's not even taking into account that they > all arise from a particle or superstring soup, physics tell us. Not to > mention that those traces of the Higgs boson experiments become "a very > small ball" in our mind, or that a transparent neon-gold-hydrogen ball now > enters your mind without ever having entered the physical world. And then > nature's ability to create individuals such as rivers, which however "you > cannot cross twice". It goes on forever. > > Of course you were discussing reasoning/action rather than perception, but > I can't help thinking that action is choosing a more or less random "best > fit" sequence/Monte Carlo simulation that (hopefully) takes us from > perceived state A to imagined perceived state B. Not unlike several of > recent pieces of film and fiction, a state A meeting a new/unkown tiger in > a new/unknown forest with your new/unknown ability to > climb/outrun/outscream/outmuscle the tiger leads to a few fantasy scenarios > and you quickly find yourself trying to implement B (you having safely > returned inside the jeep with doors and windows shut) while reverting to > other fantasy sequences and states if B becomes unlikely with more recent > data. This "deep, real-time and reactive" view of cognition suggests that, > from the software engineering point of view, a "stream processing" approach > may not be so bad, e.g. https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm . An added > benefit is that before your stream architecture matches the human intellect > it could match the reflexes of financial professionals and make you rich if > you turn it loose on financial data. > > AT > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
