John, Meshing in with your reply here...
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:43 AM, John G. Rose <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. > Game theory is one of my favorite - where the provably correct solution is to make a weighted random choice. It happens in every football play. > **** > > ** ** > > 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. > I think there may be a subtle disconnect between what I have been thinking, and what some others here have been thinking when they read my words. There are at least two very different levels at which mathematics could potentially be applied: 1. At a very low level to the atomic functionality, e.g. to guide self-organization, making the components function optimally, etc., and 2. At a very high level to solve the problems at hand. I have been think-speaking at #1 above, while Ben and others have been think-speaking at #2 above. The problem is that the words look a LOT alike, while their venues are VERY different. Mike seems to be think-speaking that math will never work for #2, because there is no way to get there to be able to apply it. In this, I suspect that he may be right, at least for the foreseeable future (a century or so). In my responses to Mike, I have been think-speaking that if we can just get #1 right, that #2 will probably work itself out, just as it does in us. Ben seems to be think-speaking that if we can SOMEHOW blow past #1 to get to #2, then he is ready, willing, and able to throw LOTS of math at it. Mike's implied (though poorly stated) assertion (with which I generally agree) seems to doom this prospect. I once performed an experiment, where I took an older and very experienced winning high school football coach (from Sealth H.S. in Seattle) and presented him with various football situations, asked him what he thought the probabilities were, and asked him what HE would do in them. I then solved the simple zero-sum game theory problems, and discovered that his solutions were VERY close to perfect. He had never even heard of game theory, yet he was able to ably solve game theory problems. Note that game theory (excepting for some trivial cases) is NOT "logical" - there is no way to "reason it out". I suspect that much of our GI comes from similar "emergent math", where our basic construction leads us to becoming able to do such things, without any #2 as many AGIers would seek to do. Steve > **** > > > *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* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> [image: > Description: Image removed by > sender.]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription**** > > [image: Description: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.listbox.com/>** > ** > > ** ** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> [image: > Description: Image removed by > sender.]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/248029-d0d678e2>| > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription**** > > [image: Description: Image removed by sender.] <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
<<~WRD265.jpg>>
