I just have to ask, will there be concepts for your "machine"? Will there ever be milk, bread and cheese?
AT On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]> wrote: > Anastasios, > > Yes, our answers differ. But this is not a surprise, at least not for me. One > should expect different conclusions from different theories. And it is also > true that a theory must be verified by comparing predictions with > experimental observations. One single experiment that contradicts the theory > can do away with the entire theory, if the experiment is properly verified > and reproduced. > > Yes, this is a revolutionary theory. But it came from a single discovery, the > discovery of self-organization in causal sets (more precisely in canonical > matrices, but they are equivalent). But no, it is not an algorithm, it is an > observation, experience that I gained. I did follow the usual algorithm for > experimental Physics, which is to pose a question and search for an answer by > experiment, and be capable of recognizing the answer when you see it. These > are my only two claims: I knew where to search, and I knew how to figure out > what exactly I had found once I had found it. I am nothing but an average > scientist. > > As you correctly say, discovery must be reproducible. This one is > reproducible, anyone can do it. There must be an independent verification, > preferably on a scale much larger than mine. It is real easy to do, as > compared for example with the monumental size of image recognition work. It > is not something you can do in an afternoon, of course, it requires someone > who will learn enough of the theory and make it run. Besides, there is only > one program, the one for I/O and the minimization of the functional. It is > the same for all problems, so it has to be written only once. > > I am not into proto-scientists. But the thing is, the excution time is > roughly constant with size IF the size does not exceed the size of the > hardware. For a (very) crude example, think of a neural network with 1M > neurons, one per each pixel in a 1M pixel camera, plus a PC to feed the data > into the network. The neural network (not the usual type) the only think it > does is to minimize the functional. > > An improvement on that, would be a chip with 1M microcomputers that can be > programmed. I think they are getting close to that. It can be done in a year > or so (don't believe me, I am terrible as a manager). And if done, will it > not attract enough attention to do the next step, say 10M, much quicker? And > then 100M. > > I am not planning on doing any of that myself. I have to continue developing > the theory, at least for now. > > > Sergio > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:44 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]> > wrote: > There is no geometry, >> addition, multiplication, axes, planes, rotations, etc. All that has >> to be learned just like you and > > I have myself written a couple of paragraphs on the many possible starting > points of an intelligence architecture, with the most agnostic ones being > something akin to "total synthesis" in chemistry, for example to start from 5 > elements and end up with complex proteins. > The lower the starting point, the more it becomes like trying to create a > human being from charcoal and water. On the other hand, we do have examples > of humans who managed to understand our world, develop language etc, while > missing 99% of the datastream average people have (deaf and blind babies) - > their effort is very much a total synthesis, so it can be done if you have a > brain. Can it be done if you have a pentium? It looks like our answers differ. > > Of course the world does not have "geometry". Geometry is a theory that > helped Euclid, Archimedes and people like him to find how much paint and wood > they need to build a house or a boat. So interaction with the world was > necessary but not sufficient, otherwise my grandma would be drawing isosceles > triangles. But the discovery of knowledge is only verified as knowledge by > repetition both personally and socially, it really depends on the majority's > ability to follow an algorithm and reach the same results as you. Then every > now and then appears someone who follows the algorithm and reaches new > results, or who modifies the algorithm - deciding who is in error and who is > a revolutionary scientist is intractable, probably also random and > incomprehensible. Flat earth etc. > > I am assuming you are building a proto-scientist. There is a way to drop it > in the deep end of scientific endeavour: you can turn it loose on a major > website, ideally with a lot of non-expiring content and a lot of updates, > like news.bbc.co.uk . That would be the input. Sadly for output you have to > limit yourself to occasional "visitors comments" by your system, and see how > long it takes for a reasonable comment. On a Pentium LOL. Or your system may > end up hacking the BBC, by submitting poisoned SQL and HTTP queries and > controlling the free world, you never know. But can you find the "right" > invariants without interaction, only by observation? A bit like our friend > Matt wants to understand the world by compressing audio, video and text? I > think it can't be done, and if it can it will take an extra 2 billion years > (on an Itanium!). > > AT > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > 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/303/14050631-7d925eb1 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > 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
