Not all rational conclusions are arrived at rationally.
Or.. sometimes you have to exit, or disengage the system of rationality to reach a rational destination. Like a computer program that generates chaos out of which emerges self-organization. What connects the two? GI is the act of engaging and disengaging systems, changing computational models and languages per system or environment, being able to switch between them, generating languages and models based on input, but somehow maintaining an operating paradigm across engagements. This is where the fancy mathematical footwork is IMO. How this builds up, arriving at that might not be rational. In my mind the structure is rational but I think due to a real world with finite computational constraints it won't work out that way, as with evolved biological intelligences they just turn out however they turn out. Real environments are so glocally non-homogenous. John From: Sergio Pissanetzky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:09 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of Intelligence/AGI) John, my thoughts: JOHN> People that don't know math still do math as a general intelligence. JOHN> A typical non-math savvy person is executing advanced mathematics unbeknownst. SERGIO> It is the other way around. As you said "The human mind is a powerful mechanism that possibly transcends known mathematics." It is very easy to trascend Mathematics because, well, of what you also said: "Scientists are rationality bound." Nature does things, we observe them and react to them, we know them, that's our intelligence, then mathematicians select the (very few) things that can be rationally explained and make theories about them. So Mathematics is not a measure of truth. I understand and support what Mike is doing, but this is an AGI blog, and we are building a machine (or so we pretend). So Mike needs to channel his thoughts in that direction. Sergio From: John G. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:58 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of Intelligence/AGI) Steve, Your last response to Mike one of the best I've seen, generously, thoughtfully and carefully crafted it was a pleasure to read. Unfortunately you were stepping into his trap and wound up here like everyone else. Since Mike is so persistent I've tried to grasp what he is saying. My thoughts: 1) People that don't know math still do math as a general intelligence. 2) The human mind is a powerful mechanism that possibly transcends known mathematics. 3) A typical non-math savvy person is executing advanced mathematics unbeknownst. 4) Mike Tintner is assiduously pointing to these advanced mechanisms, those that are generally and mathematically known, and unknown with much overlap. As AGI'ers we know there are things we can't figure out. Mike knows that. He's using his own advanced mathematical execution engine to try to figure out some of the same stuff that we are trying to figure out. Going out on a limb here: Humans have been around for millennia trying to figure out how it all works, the world, humankind, the purpose, the predictions using their own presupplied intelligence engine of the mind without mathematics and computers and have at times in history arrived at "correct" answers to questions that we are still trying to establish the proof of now, scientifically. Scientists are rationality bound, as are engineers. Sometimes there is not a "right" computational model and you can throw Occam's Razor out the window. A splatting of smattering might cover it then melting away revealing elements of truth underneath a complex explanation for simplicity. John From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] Mike, On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Steve: 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. "Line" ax = by + c "Number" This is atomic to math. "Shape" The interior area of f(x, y) that forms an enclosed area. "form" The constituents of something "Relationship" f where x=f(y) "Add" This is atomic to math. "Subtract" This is atomic to math. "Round" The nearest integer. "Square" To multiply by itself. there isn't a single CONCEPT that can be stated mathematically. Mathematics is about stating concepts. Or logically. Not a single word in the language. Put down a geometric square and it will not be remotely the same, or have the same infinite sphere of reference, as the *concept* of square. Obviously, we can't discuss concepts until we understand what they are, which is why we need some heavyweight R&D. And your ignorance/lack of imagination re the potential of programming, is comparable to that re conceptual thought - which is the foundation of AGI. Can anyone else on this forum make any sense at all of what Mike has been saying? Steve ======================== AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> Description: Image removed by sender.| <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com/> Description: Image removed by sender. AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/248029-d0d678e2> Description: Image removed by sender.| <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com/> Description: Image removed by sender. ------------------------------------------- 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
<<~WRD265.jpg>>
