Hi all,
-- That's not an AGI list, it's a "*court of justice"*, you are all
"lawyers", both the "prosecution" and the "defense", and everybody is
against everybody (mostly). What you talk about is most of the
time rhetorical and cheap superficial logic with entangled expressions, or
obvious stuff presented as ground-breaking.
-- One good reason for the court-style is that email list and "blind"
non-real time text messaging is a SICK and wrong medium for friendly
communication, especially for creating bonds and respect. It starts from
high levels of abstraction in brains, emotional paths are apparently
strongly cut-off, since forums and email lists are a common place for
"trolling" and "lawyer-like" discussions. Real time - sensory experiences
kept in the short-term memory, and maybe related to the
oxytocine-generation processes during interaction with "animate beings" -
and low level inputs (sound/voice/images) is much more constructive.
Would you personally insult somebody live? Yes, if you're sure he won't
kick your ugly face with a mavashigeri after you did, in the worst case
she''ll just turn her ASS to your face and you'll be ignored, so you would
be careful about this.
-- Jim, it's nice that you realized the "unary" system and positional
systems as compression, I've done too some time ago, I call it "incremental
arithmetic" . However in practice the unary system is not really unary at
the low level, I'll discuss this elsewhere, though.
-- While there are apparently schools of thought and at high level (as
discussed on this list) the claims of many people are THE SAME or are very
easily adjustable, most of you keep acting like you're the only one in your
"island", you're even ignorant and arrogant for the rest; any of you seem
to want really to collaborate; yep, the email list is not the right way -
it's conferences, meetings, business relationships and: see below.
>One effect of conceptual relativism is that when you use concepts to
consider other concepts the concepts you use will affect the concept under
consideration. This is simple to understand and yet I don't >remember
anyone actually talking about it to me. It is one of those things that
people either ignore or don't understand or don't care about. (...)
>One thing that Boris and I seem to agree with is that you have to be able
to refer to the source of a concept (or information) in order to resolve
some issues related to data derived from it. (Since we need >to use
generalizations then you would have to refer to the simplest generalization
of the source, or an elemental source event that characterized the class of
the generalization of the concept in order to resolve >some issues
-- Jim, relativism is so obvious ("ambiguity", "grounding", "basic
assumptions", "correct/wrong predictions"), it's as basic as that you need
to have a correct model in order to produce "correct" results given that
model.
It's interesting to whom you've explained it, if they didn't get it. Indeed
- I read your message when you say that "Nobody really knows how the brain
works". I'd ask you:
*What "How" means? How how? And what does it mean "to really know"?*
One obvious point is that a brain couldn't simulate itself at the highest
resolution by its own resources, it can only in a fake "mathematical" case
- it's running itself/~"simulating" itself.
Therefore a brain - "anybody" - could never "really understand how it
works" in all details, without aids and without focusing on specific
aspects etc., but as I've tried to explain starting a decade ago, that's
true even for the simplest computer. People "don't really understand" how
any computer work at its low levels, they can't keep in mind all or even
just a few of the processes and the dynamical data alterations running,
only small fragments at a time - still we do build computers, and people
claim that they do understand computers - "logical operations",
"flip-flops", ... - generalizations, very low level and a tiny portion of
the real system.
...
Regarding the aspect you and Boris "agree on", I myself has shared too much
about the hierarchical generalization and why it should start from the
lowest level on this list, but of course nobody can understand this obvious
stuff (besides some from the SoT).
Starting from the lowest level is as simple as that it allows highest
possible resolution of perception and control in the environment (lowest
input-output), and that this is the actual data you get and output -
sensory matrices with "meaningless data" and coordinate adjusting motions
with initially "meaningless" trajectories, to which meaning is imposed and
"implanted" by generalizing the environment and driving the trajectories
from up-to-bottom. Another elementary reason is that the lowest levels work
without fully developed higher (a baby), high level without the lower is a
non-sense, if you connect the high level to the sensory input, it will turn
into low level.
It's also obvious that humans DO use lower level data to communicate and
disambiguate, there's no other way round - again, if natural language is
used to express too low level details, it transforms in an ugly code for
expressing specific data, for example images can be expressed a pixel by
pixel in ASCII code with numbers written by NL "two hundred and eight for
red, sixty seven" etc.
I tried to explain this to Mike regarding his confused wrong examples
-*when natural language is too clumsy and ambiguous, more specific (of
higher
resolution) means of communication are used - from syntactic trees
(unveiling some of the syntactic ambiguities), to many examples from the
same class, to diagrams, maps, sound records, images, stereo images,
3D-models in a modelling environment (so you can apply output to them, can
change their coordinates and rotation towards you), animation, video,
pointers on them and all at-once, inter-modal, making for the mind even
easier the job of finding the right/wanted correlations.*
Keep in mind the above, and I'll continue regarding the brain:
*In fact people DO KNOW how brain works*, every record of brain activity
(incl. any aspect and any moment of the observable human behavior) is a
by-effect of how brain works, and it displays how it does. There are
different levels of abstraction, detail, spatio-temporal area, domain, POV
in which we PERFECTLY understand how brain works - I'll join Adam and tell
you to study neuroscience, you'll see how much is known.
Of course, another "relativistic" question here is what "to understand"
means, and a low level meaning is to be able to model it/to predict how it
will behave given particular circumstances. We DO understand how brain
works in this sense, but it depends on the spatio-temporal resolution of
causality and control for specific aspects and parts of the brain.
...
-- Boris keeps repeating stuff which is like the a-b-c from the *school of
thought* he is in, and it's obvious and elementary for ones who do
understand it, still he talks like if he was saying something
ground-breaking or "substantial", he himself has published it a decade ago
or so, other researchers - too.
The substantial things are not to be expressed in a few lines of text - too
abstract, too much "conceptual relativism", - still many of the
participants here can't manage emails of a length like of this one, and
exchange "SMS" or "tweets" here, which are hanging in no-context worlds.
IMHO, substantial discussion requires:
*-- Models, code, demos, samples, mind-developmental diagrams, tests and
results etc. and technical discussions on the *numbers* and those effects. *
*
*
*That's the way.*
Most of the stuff here is natural language blah-blah-ing.
-- And again, at the level of blah-blahing on this list, what Boris or
Sergio, or Adam or whatever says is more than obvious and basic for ones
who're familiar with the school of thought/neuroscience sub-fields etc,
I've written about it a decade ago. However it's still substantial for the
ones who don't understand it yet. Adam says substantial things about the
embodiment, which many non-sensori-motor-neuroscience guys are probably not
aware, another wording of this by myself: Embodiment is just coordinate
spaces, interactivity and modalities - not a
mystery<http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/12/embodiment-is-just-coordinate-spaces.html>
http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2011/12/embodiment-is-just-coordinate-spaces.html
*--- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ---*
*-- Twenkid Research:* http://research.twenkid.com
http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-sigi-2012-2-second.html
*-- Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog**: *http://artificial-mind.blogspot.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
