Ben, Oops, you're right.
Sorry about that. My apologies. Steve ============= On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > I have a feeling that, in this email, you are confusing two different > individuals. > > When you refer to " your thoughts on the future of an intelligent > Internet, " ---- aren't you actually referring to Matt Mahoney, rather than > Mike Tintner? > > Matt Mahoney is an opinionated and sometimes very repetitive guy; however > he is a serious and high-quality researcher in the area of text > compression... and as you note his design for an intelligent Internet via > smart message routing is clever; probably the future Net will include an > aspect resembling his design... > > Mike Tintner, as you observe, has strong philosophical intuitions about > AGI, but appears to have zero or negative knowledge about the basic > underpinning of math, science and computing. I have not observed him to > make any direct positive contributions to any discussion on this list; and > if this were a carefully moderated list, he would be rapidly banned. He > has however provoked some emails from others, containing worthwhile ideas... > > -- Ben G > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 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/303/212726-deec6279> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <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/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
