Mike, You failed to respond to my assertion that if you can state it, that it is mathematical (or could easily be turned into mathematical notation paralleling the statement, and then manipulated using rules appropriate to the notation), and if you can't state it, then you can't possibly program it.
This fundamental, because without a good response, it reduces your comments to ramblings. Either you are some sort of super-genius who sees things that others can't, or you don't even understand the very concept of math. How would YOU go about programming art, music, etc? Also, there is an issue with the concept of "complex". I am NOT saying that you couldn't state all the wisdom needed to build an AGI on one side of a sheet of paper (though I strongly suspect that it would take MUCH more). What I AM saying is that from the last half-century of R&D, it will take many more half-centuries to ever get there at the rate we are now "progressing". Insanity has been defined by some as continuing to do the same things while expecting a different result. Present AGI approaches seem to fit that VERY well. I heartily agree with the idea of first "playing with something" before starting with serious R&D, just to get a feel for it, see how difficult it is to work on such things, etc. We now have had a half-century of that with AI/AGI, and understand that AGI is NOT simple. Now, it is time to get serious, as the rest of the world has already effectively written off AGI R&D for very understandable reasons - it is populated by people who promise the moon, and deliver nothing of practical value. Remember Japan's grand 5th Generation Computing thrust? They DID produce a running demo of what they were working on, and nothing more. Whatever comes next must NOT look at all like what has preceded, or it won't be able to raise a dime. My concept of a research center is just good R&D, and nothing more. While I think you are misguided, I do NOT want to discourage your efforts to do an end-around and make AGI work. You could conceivably be right that some simple numerological programming could produce the results you are looking for. Whoever cracks the AGI "nut" will necessarily do so with conviction, and one thing your postings have convinced me of is that you do have conviction. Even if you are 100% correct, past history has already poisoned your well. Such efforts are now completely unfundable. So, you will probably have to work alone, and fund your efforts yourself. If you succeed, you won't have enough money to commercialize it, so any success will be hollow. OTOH, you could write up a proposal for a proposed method, and probably at least some technical support from a future research center. At least you wouldn't be throwing your own money at it. If your approach succeeds to commercialization, you would at least have a good job bringing it into the world. So, stop arguing with those who would prospectively provide technical and other support for your efforts. Sure they will waste millions of dollars doing things that won't work, because that is what research is all about. Steve =================== On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Steve, > > The most interesting thing here is how not just you but the great majority > of AGI-ers have sold themselves on the idea of “AGI is ever so complex” not > this time in the mathematical sense but in the human sense of “oooh, it’s > ever so complicated....” > > Ben’s proceeding on that assumption – building an incredibly complex > machine – without working out what problem it’s supposed to solve. > > Yet I’ve just given you classic contradictions. Shannon didn’t start > complicated. Turing didn’t start complicated. > > I’ve also given you a true AGI problem. > > And you’ve ignored all this completely – true creatives break creative > problems down into manageable parts. > > Well, if you wish to remain locked into your inferiority complex... > > P.S. As for your “maths is everything” – which is quite insane - there > clearly is no reasoning with you. > > Just one simple example of how it is not – how you will think at first it > is – but look closely and it is not. > > How should a Maradona or Messi plot his path with the ball when trying to > dribble through a team of opposing players? > > That might look mathematical. It isn’t. Navigating through the world is > for the most part NOT a maths. problem. Maths can be v. helpful, but it’s > secondary. > > Design a font. Design a new turbine. Design a pattern. Ditto maths, if > you need it at all, is purely auxiliary. > > > *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:54 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of > Intelligence/AGI) > > Mike, > > This appears to be the classical case of pearls before swine. EVERYTHING > is mathematics of SOME sort, but you seem to think there is something in > the 17th dimension or whatever that transcends notation. Hint: If you can't > express it, you can't program it. If you can express it, then it is > mathematics. > > Sure there may be things that transcend expression, I don't know of any, > but whatever they may be, they will never ever be programmed. If AGI would > require the programming of the inexpressible, than you might stop wasting > your time on it right now. > > Even in the proposed multiverse, most of which is inaccessible to us, > there is still a governing mathematics - from which the multiverse sprang. > > So, please return from the 17th dimension or wherever and let's at least > agree that we are never ever going to program the inexpressible, and > further, once something has been expressed, it can then be manipulated > according to the rules of our reality, a process commonly referred to as > mathematics. > > Steve > ===================== > On Thu,gi30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Being interested in the psychology of creativity, I am fascinated by >> the ways in which people get creatively stuck – and the excuses they give >> themselves for not tackling creative problems. This is a beauty: >> >> Steve: My assertion is that it is probably IMPOSSIBLE to understand many >> of the aspects of intelligence (like self-organization) without heavy math, >> wet lab experimentation, new scanning technology, and/or other >> out-of-discipline research. If nothing else, the last half-century has >> clearly shown that there are no easy answers, no "low hanging fruit" to >> gather. Plenty of people just as smart as us have dashed their careers by >> trying to "reason things out" without the advanced tools to simply examine >> the solution. I have enough of a sense of history not to do the same. >> >> ”Wow, intelligence/the brain is so-o-o-o complex, dude....” >> >> Well, depends which brain – and which problems – you’re looking at. >> >> The classic mistake is to think of intelligence purely in terms of the >> brain (or the intelligent machine/material). That’s like thinking of >> photography purely in terms of cameras. >> >> You also – in fact first - have to look at the problems intelligence >> tackles – just like you also – in fact first – have to look at the subjects >> the photographer captures, and the problems of capturing those subjects. >> >> It’s so easy to get lost in technology. >> >> In fact, the simple nematode worm has only 200 neurons and yet manages to >> solve all kinds of problems. >> >> And a slime mould has even less resources and yet also manages to solve >> problems. >> >> Problems on the other side, can be thought of in extremely complex terms >> - like how to tackle mathematical problems of everyone’s favourite (and >> total irrelevance) – complexity. >> >> “Wow, complexity is so.o.o.o complex, dude...” >> >> Or you can think of – and represent tackling problems as ... negotiating >> the forking paths of a maze. >> >> All problems *are* – or were – represented by programmers as negotiating >> the forking paths of a maze – in the form of a flow chart. >> >> So if you want to start solving the problem of AGI, try and have ideas >> about how a slime mould navigates a maze: >> >> >> http://goose.ycp.edu/~kkleiner/fieldnaturalhistory/fnhimages/l12images/Maze-solving%20amoeboid.asp_files/cs_client_data/3636046.pdf >> >> Tackling a maze problem like that was how Shannon got AI started. >> >> Tackling a problem like this can get AGI started. >> >> Just remember - and this is EXTREMELY important - the slime mould has a >> DIFFERENT problem to that of Shannon’s mechanical mouse. >> >> You have to look at the problem from the POV of the *slime mould* and NOT >> the programmer – really put yourself physically in its place. >> >> Shannon’s mouse was effectively working with Shannon’s *full knowledge* >> and *full overview* of mazes – the classic error all AGI-ers make. >> >> But a real world slime mould (or animal) doesn’t have an overview or full >> knowledge of any maze. It just sees two walls and an opening. It doesn’t >> know what lies beyond. It’s not doing mathematical computations. It’s >> exploring unknown territory – just as all our evolutionary ancestors have >> done throughout evolution – and all human creative.types have done. >> >> So how can a machine do that? >> >> Ideas, (and not excuses), Steve? >> >> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six > hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full > employment. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
