Hey y'all, you are forgetting about the considerations of search spaces and target zones.
Sprinkling some comments in to illustrate... On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]>wrote: > John,**** > > ** ** > > JOHN> 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. **** > > SERGIO> I am in full agreement, and self-organization is an excellent > example. > As I have explained elsewhere, our intelligent process is itself a very tiny target zone in a very large search space, perhaps like a grain of sand on the earth. These things CAN sometimes be found through random inductive processes, but in our case it took ~150 million years or so of searching. Similarly, random induction CAN sometimes help solve some difficult problems - it all depends on the relative sizes of the search space and the target zones. For example, if MANY things must be properly positioned to succeed, then induction will fail. Where the search space is much smaller, e.g. "do I go straight past the obstacle and fall into the pit, or go around the obstacle and avoid the pit?", induction works OK. That said, continue with your discussion that ignores the issues connected with trying to directly duplicate emergent properties, as such efforts are doomed to fail for reasons I have already explained. Perhaps you wish to dump your careers down this same rat hole that SO many others have. Perhaps my explanation was but pearls before swine? Did you understand it? Steve ==================== > JOHN> What connects the two?**** > > SERGIO> The action functional. Which, by the way, does exhibit the > "butterfly effect" (I published it). **** > > ** ** > > JOHN> 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, ...** > ** > > SERGIO> All this material, is the product of your intelligence, and of the > intelligence of all humans that you learned from. I am not interested in > products. I am interested in the process that creates the products, the > process that runs in your brain, and in all those other people's brains, > and has allowed them to create all those results. That would be, for me, an > AGI. **** > > ** ** > > JOHN> … but somehow maintaining an operating paradigm across engagements. > **** > > SERGIO> My operating environment is Physics. I subscribe to the paradigm > of Physics. **** > > ** ** > > So, IMO, once the AGI machine is built, all the work is in supplying it > with the causal information that led to those products, one at a time, > remove the entropy to cause self-organization, and compare the human > results with what the AGI did. I admit this is a lot of work, but is much > easier than writing computer simulations for each one of the products. My > approach is very different from all others. It is more like a child that > goes to school and learns for years and years until one day she learns > about disengaging systems, changing computational models, etc. And is able > to understand it because she has acquired the necessary background. My > approach does that naturally, no other approach I know of can do it.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > JOHN> 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. **** > > SERGIO> Again, I am in full agreement. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > JOHN> This is where the fancy mathematical footwork is IMO. **** > > SERGIO> The last part, after the not rational is done, is to select the > (very rare and extremely simple) cases where a theorem can be proved, and > prove it. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Sergio**** > > ** ** > > *From:* John G. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 12:44 PM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* RE: [agi] How Steve can be creative (or: The Nature of > Intelligence/AGI)**** > > ** ** > > 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* | 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/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > 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
<<image001.jpg>>
