Mike, To come to a conclusion that since no one knows how to write an actual agi program that then proves that your ideas are right and that you can prove that no one else has a clue because you know that they will not be able to, is dimly noxious and devoid of insight given the fact that most of us participate in these groups just to see if we can find some answers to these kinds of problems.
Jim Bromer On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim, > > Don’t have time now for a systematic response. Coupla points. (BTW you’re > just arguing *against* me, not *for* anything). > > 1) Didn’t get “fluid” from Hofstadter. There is nothing “fluid” in the > book, apart from the title “Fluid Concepts” – look at his font program. > Rigid, Simplistic. Don’t know anyone actually who uses “fluid outlines” as I > do. > > 2) “The fact that the theory has not been made to work in the way you > think it would work does not mean that no one has thought it through.” I > notice you don’t actually say “s.o. *has* thought it through. No one has. > > Point out s.o. who is arguing that a schema like “Go to the kitchen” > (that command can be reduced to a schematic outline) can serve as an > *alternative* to – and indeed supersede – algorithmic first-to-last-step > programs. > > When you “Pray (or whatever you & others do ) to God”, it is a fluid > schema which generates the consequent activity, not a pre-planned > algorithm. Ask your God. You’ll find God is first and foremost a God of > ideas, not formulae – a Creator, not a secretary/filing clerk. > > 3) Why don’t you give an example of an algorithm that produces or can cope > with the new and unexpected? (Why am I wasting my time asking you? You > can’t. No one can.) Your belief that this is possible has nothing to do > with reality – it is a religious belief in “Immaculate Conception” – that > something (in this case new) can come out of nothing. I’ll set this out > systematically when I have time. You really are a believer in the absurdly > and demonstrably impossible here. > > > > From: Jim Bromer > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:39 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Image schemas control all forms of action [Lakoff > replies] > > One other thing. I recalled that the word algorithm has a more precise > definition in mathematics. However, there is no way that the traditional > definition from the formalization of mathematics from the twentieth century, > which was modified from it's initial uses, is a serious limitation on what > we are talking about in these discussions about AGI. So if you accept the > idea that a computer program or subprogram can be called an algorithm then > the narrow definition that it is a method that is -only- used to calculate a > -formally defined mathematical function- does not hold. > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Mike, >> The mapping schema metaphor was derived from mapping of course. However, >> when we talk about mapping as it relates to AGI computer technology or a >> theory of mind we are not talking about something that has never been >> observed in biology (which was the authoritative source of the inspiration >> you mentioned before you equivocated and referred to cog. embodied sci. as >> your source of inspiration.) Mapping is a group of computational methods >> which have been applied to the philosophy of mind (as in the blending >> metaphor where you might imagine two images being blended together.) The >> fluidity metaphor is something that you picked up from Hofstadter if I >> remember correctly (although I have seen references to fluid transitions in >> software before he mentioned them), and Hofstadter was probably thinking >> about using something like "mapping" to achieve or use fluid >> representations. >> >> Mike, you said in your last message, >> "The other aspect of schemas that is vital is that they are fluid,loose >> outlines – and not just outlines of objects, but of actions and potential >> courses of actions – and therefore a fundamental contradiction and challenge >> to the idea of algorithmic, precisely first-to-last-step preplanned courses >> of action. *However* I doubt that anyone in the field has really thought >> this through..." >> Contrary to your belief, many people in the field have put a lot of >> thought into these ideas which you have mentioned. The fact that the theory >> has not been made to work in the way you think it would work does not mean >> that no one has thought it through. >> >> Just yesterday I tried to explain to you , "Just because a computer >> program is "programmed" ahead of time, it does not mean that the program >> cannot -ever- act as if it was being modified by the experiences it dealt >> with through its Input-Output modalities." And yet, even after I went to >> the trouble to try to explicitly explain this to you (yet again), you still >> reasserted your naive first impression that, algorithms are,"precisely >> first-to-last-step preplanned courses of action." >> Can't you understand that the people who have spent a lot of time working >> on computer programs might not respect you for repeating this sort of >> misconception over and over even after someone has tried to repeatedly >> explain it to you? >> >> Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
