Mike: "...The main reason AGI-ers invariably end up dealing with blocks worlds, is because all their systems, logical, maths, geometry, and computing, presuppose a world made of uniform elements – uniform blocks. – uniform numerical, logical and formal/geometrical units. And this permeates the theorising of AGI-ers at every level. They have blocks hammers so they presuppose the world is made of blocks nails..."
Todor: Many are "stiff", that's right, but not all, and you're classifying wrongly some of those that you're citing. What physics proves is that world *is* made of "blocks", and what biology proves is that your sensory system is built of "blocks" - finite amount of receptors, and a finite amount of muscles, with finite precision. You just have to have resolution that is high enough (it has two dimension, I've already told which) and you'll have the "endless variety". *Let me generalize your profound confusions once again and discuss about the pseudo-general intelligence of yours and of most of the humans...* --- You don't understand levels of generalization and resolution. You see everything as "different", no matter of resolution or abstraction (there's no resolution in your mind). As of the picture with the "chairs": http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/post_content.html?post_id=20121023200141:FAEBD39A-1D6D-11E2-AC2A-F39E858D62D4&cid=1C2821765FE74D60B9EE0E5A63117AFB@MikePC Well, these are not chairs, this is an image, where particular one-color (black) spots can't be recognized on a background (it's a contrast, adjacency/continuinity thing). You say that they are "chairs", this is the top-down part of naming things, you say "these are chairs". 1. "Chair" and anything that is generalized (words are generalizations, except the names) has some "general/common" parts, features, details, "substances" - that's the essential features upon which the word was coined. (Recall my generalization of what a "chair" visually is.) 2. And... many inessential features, "decorations", details - that are present in some samples and lack in others, which may or may not be recorder as fixed samples, "endless variety". You may put anything in this set, that's simple supervised labeling, not bottom-up generalization. I've already discussed this issue - what you and the top-down-and-bottom-up-generalization-deprived persons are doing is trying to generalize un-generalizable taught (forced) labeled details, which apparently lack enough common "basic" features in order to be "easily" and unambiguously groupped and distinguished from other "things". They can be distinguished only in forced labeled groups, "this elephant is a stone, this toy-car is a stone, this octopus is a stone" (say, because they all are gray) etc. - OK, if you're taught so, you may call them all "stones", and your partner will know that you mean either of an elephant, a car or an octopus, but given the word itself she won't be capable to understand which one of them do you mean, neither she would be able to make inferences about the qualities of any of the items, based on qualities of any other, except their colour which is the same. The "physical" semantic value for someone lacking that particular randomly selected set is close to zero. That's similar case to what small children often do - generalizing using inessential features that just has taken their attention. *So you fail to generalize those things, because it's impossible and they are not general, and then you conclude that generalization is impossible, there are no patterns, etc.* The fact is that you don't understand what's the pattern, you see a bunch of random details. *--- Mike, you don't have a clue about maths, as others have pointed out...* I've already tried telling, then gave up continuing, but in fact maths is happily dealing with your "blobs" and "patchworks" for centuries, they are called contours, curves, curvilinear integrals, integrals, functions; generally your "endless variety forms" graphically are curves, parametric curves and parametric surfaces, any of them and the families of them can be defined mathematically and they are defined, and all of them can be grouped on some mathematically measurable feature, and by altering the values of the parameters all instances will be produced. Such features are: - closed or open - number of inclusions (groups, subgroups)) - length of the curve (curvilinear integral) - area or volume (double or triple integral). Is it continuous or has interruptions, what are the slopes here or there, etc. - relative length of the curve to the radius, to different radii, to area etc. - angles between segments having particular features of the above Colours and their distribution can be treated the same way, differences in the contrast are dealt with differential equations. Besides, those on your pictures are simple functions, thus simply recognizable, but you don't know what a function is. *-- You talk about creativity, your friend Detusch talk about chess, how creative a human player is, blah-blah...* I suppose you both are artistically-deprived (if not disabled) - creativity in arts is in fact the same like in chess, it's just the average people who are creativity/artistically "disabled" in the part of producing it themselves. They cannot understand how art is created, they don't understand and don't manage the rules of those other "games" - those rules go beyond their cognitive capacities. Music, drawing/painting, photography (composition, light, contrast), dance, creative writing, sculpture, acting, juggling... It's all so trivial, and mathematically elementary. What do you people don't understand about art, creativity and about the creation of pieces of art or new inventions? Consult yourself with lectures, materials, papers, and you should now understand all of it. If you fail, it's your brain fault and your *pseudo-general intelligence. * In fact , the reason why intelligence appears so "magical" in general lays is in the pathetic* *cognitive capacities of the average humans. Intelligence is trivial, but humans are not smart enough. By the way, the general intelligence of humans is a myth, more specifically what's called "general" is not that "general" and is not symmetrically general. As I've discussed here also, human cognition is asymmetric, people are largely passive recognizers, not creators/producers, and their failure to understand and to produce super elementary things, in addition to their associations with emotions makes those appear as extraordinary. One "generalist" here may claim that it's "a trade-off between precision and generality", but I'll say that this is a bullshit, I challenge his intelligence "generality". What "precision" you need for drawing, or for playing a piano. It's elementary perspective transformation, layers, and trajectories. In the case of music - it's hitting super elementary sets of adjacent or otherwise-related keys , making scales, chords, arpeggios, melodies. People are amazed how does Beethoven composed music while deaf? Well, even if you are deaf, and you are given a piano keyboard, what can you do with it? Eat it? Melt it? Cut it? No, you can press the keys at different velocity, hold it for different length of time, at different coordinates, in different successions, you can repeat those, you can use all of your fingers at once, do it in different scales, combine, variate, transpose, change the directions etc. That's the "magic" of musical composition and it's mathematically *elementary. * The great composers are just great mathematicians (in average humans scale) who have conscious access to the musical data (pitches, times, ticks, their relations) and much better working memory than their audience. If physical motion is blamed, such as "fast coordinated motion requires a lot of practice" - well, do it slowly, can you?... But no, average people, including "generalists" can not deal with music or with drawing, or dance. What's "so precise" here, what amount of cognition is needed for just a bunch of a small set of possible motions done in particular way and synchronization with music or other "clocks"? So what's "general" about average human mind or your own mind's intelligence, if you can't generalize and understand such obvious things in their native domain? (Includes maths, soft sciences etc., you should deal with ALL with the same mind, otherwise you're a *"pseudo-GI"*, or a *"partial GI"*) I will conclude: It's not that GI is complex, it's that average humans' minds are not "complex" and general enough, the AGI will be intrinsically more general than a human mind, it will be in fact more of a "general intelligence" than "human level" (average human, poor "talents", or a few specific talents). So average people or ones who don't understand art or creativity may accept the simplicity of it only when you slam a thinking machine that will outperform them right into their faces. That's what any of us who want to create real GI should do... *---> 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 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
