Derek:I expect that many people, including me, are quite open to such ideas,
Actually, Derek, you were one who expressly junked my posts, if you remember. If you hadn’t done that, you would have realised that the POV just expressed – re a new companion formal science to maths – has been elaborated here many times in recent years – and in one way or other has informed hundreds of posts, esp. those re fluid schemas (icons are public examples of fluid schemas). I am not buzzword bombing. There is a v. extensive philosophy here. If you are really open to ideas, even buzzwords can be stimulating. Just the idea of a new formal science – of irregular form – should stimulate anyone who wants to move beyond maths’ limitations. I don’t want to be discouraging – you personally should be interested in what I’m saying, by virtue of your interest in Barsalou & co. Unfortunately, you’re the only one I can think of here who does have such an interest or who is “open to such ideas.” Can you think of anyone else? From: Derek Zahn Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 7:47 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real world reasoning Mike, You say that you are presenting the beginnings of a formal method for producing creativity, but -- if that is so -- it does not come across as anything coherent or even legible, much less formal. You invent or repurpose words -- geographics, imagistic, iconic, patchwork, etc -- with no supporting text to explain what you mean by those words or how they would be used to get a computer to exhibit fluid creativity. I expect that many people, including me, are quite open to such ideas, if actually worked out further than buzzword bombing. The truly interesting question is how to bridge the gap between math and the "softer" features of creative thought. Math and logic are how computers function, and are the bricks we have to build with. Whatever ideas you have about that could be warmly received. But scattering neologisms or terms from human psychology without any elaboration isn't really interesting. It does seem as if simple-minded reductionism is also unhelpful -- sure, one could describe the brain as pure math in the sense that it can be completely described as a system of 10^27 instances of the Schrodinger equation, but that is not really of any use. Similarly, one can say that AGI must be based on logic since it will be implemented with computer code, but that is an equally empty statement. These things are true, but they are not very interesting criticisms because they don't suggest anything useful, and are not even relevant to positions that most AGI researchers actually believe. Almost everybody gets that there is an issue to be solved here, the question is how. Ben has his own ideas embedded in the Novamente design; others have their own takes on the issue. What exactly are your ideas? > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] Why Logic & Maths Have Sweet FA to do with Real world > reasoning > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:40:11 +0000 > > P.S. You should also remember that I have always insisted and continue to > insist that maths is only one half of a true formal science of abstract > form. It deals with *regular* forms and patterns (and offers means of > analysing *individual* irregular forms in terms of regular forms). > > We need another half -a "geographics" to complement "geometry" - that > analyses *classes * of irrregular forms in terms of the icons/ideas (as > distinct from formulae) that generate them. Maths - esp freeform geometry - > can, to repeat, only analyse individual irregular forms NOT classes of > them - NOT classes of rocks, blobs, waterdops, NOT classes of patchworks. > There is no maths/geometric formula for rock forms - but there is a strong > case that there is an iconic idea. > > Maths is wonderful as a basis for creating regular technology - regular, > uniform machines. But it doesn't tell us how "God" (or how we can) create > the irregular, multiform forms of nature, from rocks to clouds, from amoebae > to humans. A true systems physics and biology now need to understand that. > God is even more of an abstract artist than mathematician. Not either/or, > but both/and. > > [Let's just forget about it, right? Let's just do the same old maths - > that's the best way to be creative - do the same old with minor tweaks, over > and over - that gets such great results]. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/4027887-e37ac021 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
