Mike, On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> Steve, > > Would you like to explain how you can use maths to program a robot to > navigate a room or street it has never seen before – an unknown territory? > No, because this area isn't yet sufficiently developed. Just because this particular technique isn't yet known gives me absolutely NO reason to suspect any fundamental failure of mathematics in general. It would take MUCH MUCH MUCH more than this, and certainly more than you now know. Note my former employment as the computer and mathematics consultant at the U of W Physics and Astronomy departments. There, I worked at the very edge of what could be done with mathematics. Can you imagine trying to understand what is happening inside a star from what little can be observed from the outside? This is even MORE obviously impossible than is understanding the operation of neurons, yet they are doing it. You are nowhere near that edge. > > This is something you and I do continuously throughout our lives – > navigate unseen, unknown territories, from rooms and woods to texts and > movies. That is a pretty indisputable truth of living in the real world – > and it is of vital concern both actual and metaphorical for AGI. You’re > saying, in effect we do and must use maths to do it. > > Well how? How will maths navigate an unseen room? How will maths navigate > a new movie, like say The Hobbit? Or Haneke’s Amour? Or help a child or > robot to navigate a new machine, like say an ipad? > > Anything to offer here – apart from insults? > How can you rationally exhibit a problem that hasn't yet been solved as an indictment of all of mathematics? At one time some people suggested that Fermat's Last Theorem was just such an indictment - until a 100-page proof emerged. This is obviously impossible - yet your continue posting the same old crap without a glimmer of anything that makes sense to the others here. Neither I nor anyone else on this forum has been able to make ANY sense of this. Since you have been SO conspicuously unable to make this point, why don't you just give up? Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result. Note that I have been publishing incremental realizations of unrealized impediments that have been blocking progress, like the apparent need for dP/dt representation to be able to make temporal learning work right, rather than stupidly saying that it exceeds the capacity of mathematics to perform, without ANY rational argument to support such an absurd statement. You are obviously not even able to play in this sandbox, let along declare the sandbox as fatally flawed. > > P.S. If you analyse intense outbursts like yours here – you will find it > is when a major nerve has been hit, and the person has no direct way of > dealing with it – no reasoned reply to offer. > No, when I see the SAME stupidity for more times than I can even estimate, over the course of many months, I finally seek to stop stuffing my inbox with crap. My own solution seems to be to ignore any threat starting with "Matt". *Everyone else here should be on notice NOT to post anything important on any thread that Matt started. * Steve ============ > > *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:32 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real > world reasoning > > Everyone, > > This thread makes about as much sense as arguing about how many angels can > fit on the tip of an 802.11g antenna. > > Mike has been unable to make ANY argument regarding the inapplicability of > mathematical methods that made any sense to others here, while everyone > (including me) here has tried to either set him right or drag out any > well-hidden wisdom. I have long resisted ANY sort of censorship, but enough > is enough. > > *Mike: I hereby pronounce you a troll* - until such time that you create > an explanation regarding the inapplicability of mathematical methods that > makes sense to OTHERS here. Mike, you need to go away and THINK how to make > your point to OTHERS here. After reading probably hundreds of your > postings, I really don't think you have a point to make. This is because if > you were smart enough to find a fundamental flaw in the foundations of > mathematics, you would also be smart enough to explain it, which you > OBVIOUSLY are NOT. > > Further, I hereby pronounce everyone who continues to respond to Mike's > continuing unmathematical troll-postings as just plain stupid. > > *Don't be stupid.* > > How about a period of contemplation, during which Mike will find SOME way > to make his point - presuming of course that he has a point to make. From > Mike's past attempts, it appears to me that Mike doesn't have a good > understanding of the foundations of mathematics, and is simply objecting to > the problems he sees in his own very flawed understanding of mathematics. > At minimum, Mike's future postings on this subject shouldn't be dripping > with sophomoric misunderstandings about mathematics. > > Mike, I really enjoy your thoughts on the future of an intelligent > Internet, and think that you should stick to such positive contributions, > rather than throwing negative mud on the efforts of others, especially when > you are so obviously NOT an expert on the mud you are throwing. > > Mike, I am now preparing a patent application on a very different (and > MUCH less expensive) way of achieving much the same goals as your > proposals. I even plan to reference your plans in my patent application. > However, your recent postings have in effect proven the "Peter Principle" - > you have risen to your level of incompetence. I suggest taking a step back > to your true area of expertise - the coming intelligent Internet. > > Mike, I look forward to your future postings about the coming intelligent > Internet. No, it won't require a quadrillion dollars - it can be done for a > few tens of millions of dollars. No, it won't be publicly owned, though I > agree with you that it probably should be. Here you have also hung onto > your beliefs, rather than incorporating the thoughts of others to improve > your own proposals - possibly even to the point of funding. The result is > that someone else (like me) will end up making the money that could have > been yours, so it won't be you who directs expenditures on future research. > As a result, you will probably fade into the dustbin of history during your > own lifetime. > > Sad. > > Steve > ============ > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Logan: have you ever programmed a robot? You have to measure the >> distance to the wall so you don't walk into it >> >> >> >> Logan, >> >> Think carefully about your assumptions here. >> >> You’re assuming that a robot must be programmed as robots have always >> been. >> >> And if a normal robot is programmed to walk to a given goal, the >> programmer may indeed measure or plot the distance and route to the goal. >> >> That is the normal practice. And reasonable practice. >> >> IF you want to keep producing NARROW AI robots. >> >> You are actually basing everything on **narrow AI** assumptions (just as >> Ben’s & Jim’s concurrent thread is based). >> >> But we want an AGI ROBOT that can conduct activities like animals and >> humans – that can walk down a field or street just as YOU do - something >> that no robot has ever done before. >> >> Now consider how you actually walk down a new field or a new street. >> >> Do you first “measure the distance to the end of the field/street”? >> **Before** you walk down the field? >> >> That’s physically impossible isn’t it? (In a normal situation). >> >> And in a sense it’s physically impossible for a narrow AI robot too. It >> wasn’t actually the robot that measured the distance to the wall or goal – >> it was the PROGRAMMER. >> >> AGI is about creating courses of action – new courses of action - walking >> down a new field of whatever description – physical or metaphorical - that >> *can’t* be measured or plotted in advance. >> >> And for that maths/measurement simply doesn’t apply - at least not in >> any necessary way. Programs without maths are not only possible, they are >> essential here. >> >> Any program here can only, essentially, tell the robot to head for the >> goal, put one foot in front of the other, and hope for the best. Because >> you can’t know for sure what lies ahead in a new field – let alone measure >> it or the steps that must be taken. >> >> Narrow AI is about getting machines to take old journeys in old fields, >> that the programmer has already taken on behalf the machine – before it >> moves a metal muscle - and that the programmer knows exactly how to take. >> >> AGI is about getting machines to take new journeys in new fields, that >> robot and programmer alike *haven’t** already taken – *and don’t know >> exactly how to take.** (or measure). >> >> Nobody in AGI gets the distinction.* * >> >> >> >> *From:* Logan Streondj <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 01, 2013 7:45 PM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real >> world reasoning >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> *Logan:I simply said that math was necessary for programming to work* >>> ** >>> *Really? You are saying that a robot can’t take steps to a goal – walk >>> across a room or field – without some kind of counting or numbers being >>> involved? * >>> >> >> certainly! have you ever programmed a robot? >> >> You have to measure the distance to the wall so you don't walk into it. >> Also assuming it has legs has to calculate step length so it doesn't exceed >> the amount of space available. Sure when you walk, you don't explicitly >> count it in mm or w/e, but you do implicitly based on measuring the amount >> of visible space, much of course is done by lower brain regions which are >> out of the way of conscious thinking. >> >> >> >>> *That – wh. is more or less what David talks about - a robot “taking >>> steps to a goal” – is a good v. general way to think about both the final >>> function of programming and AGI. Why do those steps have to involve maths? >>> * >>> >> >> even version increments involve counting. I use a hexadecimal increment >> system in my roadmap. GIT uses sha hashes for versioning, which is a more >> complicated numbering system, that uses more advanced math functionality. >> >> >>> *(There does have to be some sense of quantities – for example, of >>> putting more or less effort into those steps – but again why does that >>> quantitative sense have to be precisely mathematical rather than crudely >>> emotional? * >>> >> >> Emotions are for making the actual decisions, whereas math helps quantify >> the options, allowing for smarter decisions, which may lead to more >> positive emotions. >> >> >>> *When you do pressups, do you think your system is performing >>> mathematical calculations of effort – or is your sense of pain rather >>> something very crudely and imperfectly fluidly quantitative? After all, >>> your system doesn’t actually know its precise limits – how can they be >>> quantified?)* >>> >> >> sure they can be quantified, with kg's and things like that. A healthy >> vertabrate can on average safely lift and carry about 25% of their body >> weight for prolonged periods of time. >> Though potentially a 100% or more for short intervals. >> >> If getting groceries from the store, I often at least make rough >> calculations of how many kg I'm getting, as I carry the food in my >> backpack, and if I'm walking it could be half an hour of carrying or more. >> It can be very grueling to carry too much, so I like to be able to estimate >> with kg and know how much is safe. >> >> >> *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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > 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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
