> B., you must be very desperate to discuss it with logicians etc. who don't > get even this.
I am fine, thank you. Just a little diversion once in a while. It's actually less frustrating than talking to you, - results are about the same, but my expectations are lower. From: Todor Arnaudov Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 7:48 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Uncertainty, causality, entropy, self-organization, and Schroedinger's cat. Mike, jUm, >Tudor, >You made a criticism about us and then you proceeded to do the very same thing >that you had criticized us for. Is it actually possible that you were >completely unaware that you did that, or, did you feel that >your accusation >and presentation of your case somehow transcended the constraints on the >behavior that you are so intolerant of. jUm, I was completely aware, and that was an illustration of this *, I'm sick of this. Email lists are not friendly, they work for announcement and short Q/A-trouble-shootings-organization, those here are interrogation sessions - annoying, clumsy, lacking context, protracted. >There was little substantial in your message but there was a lot of the same >kind of garbage that you were complaining about. But obviously you didn't get the message, even though it's screaming. Regarding the embodiment thing that's so obvious to B., A., or me, to you it's not. B., you must be very desperate to discuss it with logicians etc. who don't get even this. > The fact is that Boris, Sergio, I and Adam and other people have been talking > about codes and models. > Great, then next time you might make a substantial comment about it that > would enlighten us. jUm, I've did already 1000 times, repeating things as for retarded ones. Indeed this "enlightening" is one of the sick things in those email lists of strangers, and it's hard to enlighten dark matter. One knows something, others don't get it at all, one reason is that have 1/10 of one's background or demonstrated cognitive capacities in general domains, yet everybody believes he's the smartest one - even if the other one is better than him in 20 domains in which the first one is absolutely incapable and don't have a clue. No, AGI is something... different. Your skills and demonstrated intellectual superiority in a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h doesn't matter. It's ... different! :)) The reason is - everybody believes he's the center of the Universe. One talks about neuroscience, others don't have a clue, but they believe they understand it better. One has published papers and works that give more details about a point, a lot of it, that answer all "creative" questions others ask - no one cares or spent time to read it, ask the questions and wants personal answer, like from a personal tutor, because the other one believes he's the best - he should be "convinced", as some say - "convince me that you're right". Convincing is wrong - a court thing. And because you believe you're smarter or know more than the rest, with no evidences. Everyone believes the other one is of lower rank to him, he doesn't deserve respect and time (the confusing use of pronouns is deliberate) to read his papers. "Enlightening" of the dark matter - a very little success. >Todor: Embodiment is just coordinate spaces, interactivity and modalities - >not a mystery >How do “coordinate spaces, interactivity and modalities “ *feel* and have a >unified sense of their body? Mike, didn't you get that qualia is not AGI, and you can't prove whether anything has or doesn't have qualia, if it's immaterial? Well, understanding of some concepts require adequate cognitive capacities, which if not met - understanding is impossible with any explanations. Like you can't explain to a severely retarded person what "money" are - he sees every piece of paper as "a piece of paper" - he can't read, can't recognize digits, can't recognize images on the paper. Let me tell you a story about him. How can? - Joe says. - You give "a piece of paper" to someone and then you receive food or a candy, or something else, and the other person is even smiling at you? Why didn't she ate the food himself? What she would do with those papers? He put the piece in that drawer... Why didn't she burn it at least? It's more fun! Or look! That man puts that piece of cardboard there, moves it, it makes "pi-pi-pi" sound, and they give him food! There's no reason! All those people are crazy! Their minds are scattered! >How can they say “I feel small, like a worm”..”I feel tall like a giant”.. “I >feel like I’m on air”... ? Very easily, ask Mr. Kazachenko, he know also and would enjoy explaining this to you, too. :) >How do they know how to imitate – create an embodied impression of - Michael >Caine, Tom Cruise, John Travolta and other figures, just by watching a few >seconds of film footage?.. Do you know how a tape recorder works? In computers and this case it's the same, but the recording and the mapping has a vast amount of "channels" for all the parameters, and first it has to recognize the mapping. I've talked about this already. >and then create new imitations of these figures uttering new words and making >new moves? Alter some of the data in some of the channels. >How, essentially, one can ask: do the *parts* of a body form a unified >*whole*? They don't, the unified whole is an illusion as is decided from the top to bottom, the limits mind has set to decide whether something is a part or not. I.e. that's a deliberative decision. "Wholes" are abstractions, for example there are no molecules, but other "things" whose by-effects are producing effects, which are useful to be accessed as "wholes" for particular needs. >To science and our culture this is one of the greatest of mysteries. To you – >like everything else in AGI – apparently not. Qualia is not AGI. And "to the science and culture", dude, most of the highest ranking dudes are not the highest IQ dudes, neither are the most versatile. And the widely accepted believes etc. are often ones which are accessible by an average-mind. If they are too complex or just impossible to grasp for the capacities of an average high-ranked or whatever mind (in given domain), they won't be "to our science and our culture", it would be to "their science and their culture - of those weirdos, that no one understands, because they are cranks, crazy". Read the story about the money again, or read the novel "The planet of the apes" and watch the reaction of the apes when the main characters explain that they fell down from space with a spaceship. That's impossible! We, the apes, are the top of the nature! OK, you are. The "common conceptions" are ones which are accessible by some IQ/cognitive capacity. >But your ideas about embodiment – like almost all of your long posts – are a >set of wildly scattered pieces of ideas that do not cohere as a whole. [Check >others’ responses if you think I’m just being insulting]. Mike, what's "scattered" is your cognition, the "discoherence" is the fault of your narrow working memory. You even confuse generalization and differentiation and don't get elementary things (to me) explained like for a retarded. And see you on the AGI products market - that's the real way and place to prove an idea is working or not. Not in the "court". -- --- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov --- -- Twenkid Research: http://research.twenkid.com -- Self-Improving General Intelligence Conference: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-sigi-2012-1-first-sigi-agi.html -- Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
