Steve, And the idea that text-based AGI is impossible because text is too bland to provide active guidance to an AGI program is also nonsense. There may be complexity problems or other kinds of problems that would make any AGI program impossible at this time, but if one kind of AGI program is feasible then a text-based AGI program would be feasible. Jim Bromer On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote:
> Tudor (and Mike), > > Responding to these posts may be good exercise for your fingers, but > talking about something where the listener has no clue what the subject is, > is a COMPLETE waste of your valuable time and effort. I have tried and > failed, as will you and anyone else who takes Mike's bait. > > Mike has absolutely NO clue regarding the prospective boundaries of > mathematics, or for that matter, even what advanced mathematics might be > useful for. Mike in effect "thinks" that he can proceed in some sort of > quasi-useful direction without ANY form or manipulable representation. That > Mike has apparently made it through his teenage years while preserving this > thought should be ABSOLUTE PROOF that you might as well be sending your > responses to the bit bucket. > > That our neurons manipulate their inputs is pretty good proof that > whatever is being represented is manipulable, and therefore easily within > the grasp of some sort of suitable mathematics (that may or may not yet > exist). Everyone easily sees this but Mike. > > Mike "thinks" we are all running in the wrong direction, but he has yet to > make his case. I continue to read his postings in the continuing hope that > he has woke up the challenge of explaining his vision to the rest of us > mere mortals, but so far, no joy. However, I no longer respond to his crazy > attacks on all of mathematics. > > Steve > ================ > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >"How many bloody times are you guys going to make the same mistake over >> and over? It seems to be an almost universal error here.>Maths is >> formulaic – it seeks to produce the formulae for SETS of abstract forms. >> But it can only produce formulae for sets of REGULAR forms." >> >> *Todor: *That's wrong, I explained you why it seems so to you. The >> "regular forms" are just the simplest ones you see. Maths and physics >> includes very complex differential equations - as complex as you wish, - >> namely laws to solve those. >> >> >> *>"Until you get this distinction into your head – maths CAN deal with >> INDIVIDUAL irregular forms, but CAN’T deal with SETS OR FAMILIES of >> irregular forms, >you are going to have a major problem understanding AGI >> – in fact be *incapable* of understanding AGI.* >> >> *>The central task for AGI is to visually recognize/ conceptualise/ >> generate FAMILES and GROUPS of IRREGULAR FORMS, not just indiividual ones.. >> **."* >> >> *Todor: *Maths is about generalization of rules, not about individual >> forms. The individual forms are instances and application of those rules. >> But I agree that AGI should be capable to cope with "irregular forms" if >> that's interpreted as: to accumulate complexity and to build more complex >> "forms" than the basic ones (the "regular" ones). >> >> *>Maths can represent any INDIVIDUAL rock form. It cannot produce a math >> formula for a SET of rock forms – for rock forms generally* >> >> *Todor: *In fact maths and physics are created exactly to deal with the >> "forms" (functions, correlations, phenomenons) seen in nature (sensory >> inputs), and exactly with sets (generalizations) which match particular >> requirements/limits, classes of things. >> >> Even the basics in maths - the numbers - are in fact "sets" and the >> formulas are exactly a way to apply rules to a class or families of objects >> with similar characteristics. >> >> The "irregular" forms are just forms which require more complex set of >> parameters and "irregular" rules to get defined. >> >> >> *>"This is what defeats all attempts to visually object recognize and >> conceptualise. Our computers cannot recognize human faces and bodies >> because they are so >irregular. Nor can they produce any conceptual >> prototypes for such forms.""* >> >> *Todor: *I don't think so, and faces are not irregular. The nonessential >> parameters are "irregular", that's why they are non-essential, why they >> look "irregular and complex" and why they cannot be generalized (it's a web >> like the causation). Only the repeating features are generalized. >> >> IMHO there are practical facial and body recognition and 3D pose >> estimation tools, there are not used widely yet, though, but it is about to >> get massively popular very soon as a part of the "Natural Interfaces". >> >> In fact one case of 3D pose estimation (human bodies) is getting popular >> already, Kinect and other sensors like Xite, which are RGB+Depth - the >> direct depth sensing makes 3D reconstruction easier, when there are >> skeleton models for humans pre-built (like in Kinect), it's even more >> easier. >> >> >> Cheers >> -- >> *--- 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 <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/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
