First of all, the burden remains on you to show us that there is, ahem ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of creativity that is *not* the result of recombination of the already existing elements in ways that are both compressible (= understandable) by the agent and yet previously unknown to it. Second, I see no rational reason to assume that there even can be such 'exemption from existence of rules' in the first place.
-- http://about.me/mindbound On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > PRODUCE ONE EXAMPLE of a creative algorithm. Or a creative recipe. One > single algorithm that has produced one new element. > > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22there+IS+no+recipe+for+creativity%22&oq=%22there+IS+no+recipe+for+creativity%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 > > Edison was a crackpot? > > h<http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22there+IS+no+recipe+for+creativity%22&oq=%22there+IS+no+recipe+for+creativity%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=edison+%22there+are+no+rules+here%22&oq=edison+%22there+are+no+rules+here%22&gs_l=serp.12..0i30j0i5i30.126924.134683.0.187167.34.31.0.0.0.0.221.3567.12j18j1.31.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.EC36VbE0jSU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ac52033c91527ab7&bpcl=35243188&biw=1280&bih=724> > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=edison+%22there+are+no+rules+here%22&aq=f&oq=edison+%22there+are+no+rules+here%22&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 > > The above view is pretty universal in all the creative arts, incl. the > arts of maths and logic, science and technology. “There are no rules.” > “There is no formula”.. etc > > ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE. > ** > ** > *From:* Arets Paeglis <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:32 AM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > 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/303/20912103-eed2d0e1> | > 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
