If you posit that creativity is "non-algorithmic" (regardless of whatever that would even *mean*), you are also implying that it is uncomputable, since it supposedly cannot be the result of a finite number of steps of a program running on a UTM. Are you really going to crank the crackpot dial up to the point of claims about creativity disobeying Church-Turing thesis and requiring something more "exotic" than mere computation to get it done? This group is well-known for stuff that explores the land of unfounded, fringe claims in every direction but this is already becoming ridiculous.
-- http://about.me/mindbound On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben, > > You seem to have gone off in flights of fancy. > > BEN:"It's trivial to write a single, short computer program that can > > generate *every possible picture* that can be displayed on a computer > screen, one after the other -- including all the curves you like to > draw.... This program would indeed use simple math equations. It > would create a digital image of every beautiful painting ever made, > and every one that ever will be made.. for example..." > > No it's not "trivial" and it's never been done, and never will be done. > What on earth gives you the basis for anything you've just written? Once > you unquestioningly posit such a magical entity - an "all-shape assuming" > program - you can get totally lost in the "logical" but totally "fanciful" > consequences. > > Put what I wrote below into more visual program terms - > > the reality is that there are no visual programs whatsoever (autonomously > form-changing programs vs aids-to-human-artists programs) that do not have > an EXTREMELY NARROW REPERTOIRE OF VISUAL FORMS. > > There are Mondrian programs that can produce endless variations on > pseudo-Mondrians - with lines and rectangles - but THAT'S ALL THEY CAN DO. > > They can't suddenly mutate into producing new kinds of forms - Rothko > rectangularish forms, or Miro "blotty" forms, or Jackson Pollock "blotting > pad" forms - or any such diverse forms whether similar to an artist or not. > > They can just do their lines and rectangles. They can't mutate into > curves. Whereas a human playing around with doodles can endlessly generate > new species of forms. > > And if you think they can - PRODUCE ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE. > > Why is this? Because there are no formulae/algorithms that can cover > diverse "species" of forms. I've often made this point before but there > seems no way it can penetrate you guys - geometry's formulae are EXTREMELY > LIMITED - they can only produce v. limited species of geometrical forms - > and thus there are and have to be thousands or millions of them - there > isn't just one geometrical formula/algorithm that can produce every > geometrical form whatsoever - triangles AND squares AND circles AND > Mandelbrot curves... > > No wonder you're lost if you can even entertain such a notion as you > started with here. > > It's worth taking time to understand the NON-GENERATIVITY message, because > it applies to every kind of algorithmic program whatsoever - artistic, > musical, building, cooking, circuit-building.... > And once you get it - and it's not hard - I will be your saviour. > > ************ > > As for the "How is creativity produced?" again you've boxed yourself into > an absurd corner. > > You've started with: > > "well of course creative programs are algorithmic - if he doesn't believe > that he must believe in magical creativity". > > To repeat: there are no creative algorithms - that's as absurd as your > quote above. But that doesn't mean for a second that creativity is > nonmechanical/"magical" > > How do you actually create your own home-made stew, or improvise your own > tune on a piano? Think visually of what you actually do, and you'll realise > those are mechanical, physically instantiable affairs. > > You reach out for some foods that might be suitable, toss them into the > pot, and see what you've got. You reach out, press some keys down and see > what noises emerge. A machine can do that. > > Hey that's"improvisation." Real improvisation - which you really have not > understood. Those musical programs you quoted before are merely > "permutation" programs - ditto GA's - there's no improvisation. They > permutate a given set of elements, possibly then further permutating the > resulting permutations. That's not improvisation. > > With true improvisation you physically or mentally reach out and discover > "objets trouves". Found objects. Newly found objects. New elements. You > physically explore the world and bring in new elements to the mix of > whatever you're trying to produce. And there's no "prediction" involved, > just creative, adventurous trial and error - you won't know whether > anything works until you've tried it. > > Your GA's are not creative because there are NO NEW ELEMENTS. They merely > play around with a GIVEN, FIXED SET OF ELEMENTS. > > Life, every which way, is creative - continually incorporating new > elements. Sexual unions involve new mixtures of genes. > > Everyday, Turing-test, conversations are creative - continually > incorporating new elements - which is one reason why they will always > defeat algorithmic approaches. Today you're talking about Romney-Obama, > Armstrong doping, Spain going to the ECB - and there's never been anything > formulaically like these events. > > That's what it is to be a conversing human being - continually creatively > improvising and incorporating new elements into your conversation.... > > Algorithms are CLOSED SETS. AGI is about endlessly mixing in new > elements from the world (and your own infinite range of movement and > thought) into your courses of action. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Ben Goertzel > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:31 AM > > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > Mike T, > > About programs to generate geometrical shapes > > Let me turn your question around a bit... > > It's trivial to write a single, short computer program that can > generate *every possible picture* that can be displayed on a computer > screen, one after the other -- including all the curves you like to > draw.... This program would indeed use simple math equations. It > would create a digital image of every beautiful painting ever made, > and every one that ever will be made.. for example... > > The question is then how to filter down the program's output, so that > it generates only the shapes you want it to. If you have, say, 10 or > 20 example shapes, then current machine learning tech can learn a > model of these 10-20 shapes, and try to create new shapes in their > same spirit... > > For simple classes like circles or lines, this would work fine... > > For more complex classes of shapes like, seashells or dog faces, a > simple machine learning approach won't work unless you give it > insanely many training examples. To deal with systematically > generating these more complex classes of shapes you need a more > complex and subtle AI system than anyone has created to far. > > However, one could prove a theorem that: For any category of shapes > that can be shown on a computer screen, there is some computer program > that will generate all and only the shapes in that category... > > The fact that we don't currently know the exact program for > generating, say, the set of all images of dog faces -- doesn't mean > that there is no such program. In fact we can prove via mathematics > that such a program exists. > > Even if I knew that exact program (for generating the set of all > images of dog faces), it would be large and complex and too much to > paste into an email. And if I did so, you wouldn't know enough to > read the program anyway... > > As far as creativity goes -- I think you misunderstand it. A mind is > a complex thing, with explicitly, acutely conscious aspects plus less > acutely conscious (commonly called "unconscious") aspects. Some new > creative idea may seem to the conscious mind to have popped > miraculously out of the blue. But actually it was created by the > unconscious mind via combining and abstracting from and mutating > various previously existing ideas and percepts and actions -- which > then delivered it to the conscious mind. By looking only at the > conscious image of an act of creation, you see it as more > miraculous/mysterious than it is. > > -- Ben G > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Mike A: >> Surely you'd have to concede that there are some rules which persist >> over time and are static? >> >> Absolutely. All mathematical and logical and algorithmic systems (in >> themselves) are completely, eternally non-creative, non-generative. They >> are >> all dead recipes with rigid rules that have never and could never produce >> a >> single new ingredient or element - because quite obviously they are not >> designed to be creative. They are recipes with set, exclusive mixtures of >> ingredients. >> >> (This is the crux of creativity - the capacity to add new hitherto unknown >> elements to a course of action or its product). >> >> If you add new unknown elements to a recipe, the recipe collapses and >> could >> get v. nasty. If you allow a building algorithm that produces lego block >> structures, to introduce any new building blocks - rocks, say, or chunks >> of >> mud, - its buildings could literally collapse. And no one tries this. >> These >> systems are designed to produce precisely predetermined results with >> precisely predetermined mixes of known elements. >> >> These systems are wonderful if you want to be a narrow AI cook who can >> cook >> one specialist dish or set of dishes. They're useless if you want to be a >> creative cook, who can endlessly generate new dishes, as humans can. >> >> Now surely you can concede that no one anywhere in the entire history of >> the >> world has produced a single exception to this general rule of the >> non-generativity of formulaic, rulebound, set-ingredients systems? There >> are >> no algorithms, formulae or logics that are creative. No one has ever >> produced an example here. No one ever will.... And there are zillions of >> possible examples. >> >> What we do have is the most amazing amount of logical gobbledygook that >> argues how these systems might be creative - but neither a) explains how >> they can introduce new elements or b) provides a single instance of a >> program etc that ever has. >> >> Nada. But an awful lot of shameful assertions that of course there are >> such >> systems - and of course people have produced millions of examples of them >> in >> the past - and how could you, Mike, be so stupid as to think there are >> not - >> and ROFL at you - oh absolutely ridiculous - but now, right now, the >> speaker >> is just too busy, you understand, to produce a single example. Oh of >> course >> he could produce *so many* examples, and he will, he will, but now right >> now, he can't. (Basically all people who argue thus are lying gits). >> >> If you or Ben can grasp this simple obvious truth of the non-generativity, >> non-new-element-ality of formulaic, rulebound systems with set mixtures of >> ingredients, I will indeed be your saviour. >> >> What you et al are trying to maintain is a scientific, material absurdity >> - >> and something of which you will come to be v. v. ashamed. Produce ONE >> FUCKING EXAMPLE. Or admit you can't. >> >> P.S. And I've heard all the shit about sophisticated, evolving systems and >> GA's etc - they cannot and never have introduced a single new hitherto >> unknown element They have no novelty. Demonstrably. They are mindblowingly >> narrow in their products except to AGI suckers who actually half believe >> their own hype - and AGI is nothing but failed hype. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------- >> AGI >> Archives: >> https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/212726-** >> 11ac2389 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&; <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche > > > ------------------------------**------------- > AGI > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** > 6952829-59a2eca5<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> > > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/?&;<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > ------------------------------**------------- > AGI > Archives: > https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/303/=now<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/**member/archive/rss/303/** > 20912103-eed2d0e1<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20912103-eed2d0e1> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/** > member/?&id_**secret=20912103-94441870<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Powered by Listbox: 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
