Derek: Do you think a normal computer is capable of AGI, in theory (meaning, if programmed properly) or not?
Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.Yes.Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes I have said this an awful lot before. And if you’d read earlier exchanges with John, you’d know that Deutsch and I agree on several points. The only real point of discussion here should be : what ideas have you got for how a generative form (formulaic/algorithmic/iconic/ idea-l/ whatever ) of any kind is going to solve the problem of AGI – be creative unlike narrow AI progs – and deal with ( i.e. produce/recognize/conceptualise/handle) *new* diverse forms/ objects (as per Hofstadter’s example of A fonts)? Ben has just done yet another QED of how he will not look at or discuss the problem. Hofstadter has at least addressed the problem, but he has no solution at all. You’re more open, but in the final analysis you’re not contributing anything either. Just making broad prescriptions – incl., essentially that people must “keep the Turing faith” - is avoiding the real work of dealing with the problem.Let’s have some ideas. P.S. You, like nearly everyone here, seem to be ignorant of a basic truth of major creative/inventive advances and the general history of technology – the existing paradigm is *always* shattered. Clinging desperately to it helps no one. From: Derek Zahn Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:29 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons Mike, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Do you think a normal computer is capable of AGI, in theory (meaning, if programmed properly) or not? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:22:54 +0000 Derek: If they[concepts] are to be implemented on computers at all, this has to be the case: computers run [algorithmic] programs! A characteristic feature of a person’s executing some goal-directed activity is that the program may be of a nonalgorithmic nature.The difference between algorithmic and nonalgorithmic programs (or prescriptions) is that the first determine the corresponding operations unambiguously and completely, whereas the second do not. For example, to facilitate a problem-solver’s search for a solution , the instruction “ find an analogous problem” is nonalgorithmic, whereas the instruction “check whether the number ends in 5” is algorithmic. Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status By Charles M. Reigeluth “A classical computer, notes [Richard] Feynman, can never simulate nonlocality (…) Thus, if nonlocal information processing exists in humans, it is one of our nonalgorithmic programs that a classical computer can never simulate” Goswami There are rules of programming! Derek Zahn Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. Thomas A.Edison [and reread the Deutsch essay] From: Derek Zahn Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 6:51 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons Mike, The place you end up arguing with the members of this list is kind of silly. By saying that math, formulas, algorithms, are inadequate for AGI, you are in fact claiming that AGI on normal modern computers is impossible, since that is how they work. If that is really what you mean, then please stop pestering this list; the possibility of such (or I suppose a concrete buildable alternative that is spelled out) is kind of a prerequisite. I suspect, though, that you are not really claiming this but for some reason are stubbornly unwilling to grant that point, so it is round and round in circles. I suspect you are really saying that mathematical formulae or predefined algorithms are inappropriate representational formalisms for creative, general, thought. You might get pushback still on that point, but not quite as much. For example, one could say that although "algorithms" or logic rules or whatever form a base computational layer of an AGI mind, the representational strata for concepts, or iconic imagetastic schemata, or whatever, exist in some sense at a higher level of abstraction. If they are to be implemented on computers at all, this has to be the case: computers run programs! I believe that Ben has phrased it in a similar way... that conceptual and creative thought in Novamente occurs in the dynamic interaction of simpler mechanical processes. The debate should be about both what the "real" substrate for creative though should be (that does not look like the computer code used to implement it) and how to realize it on top of actual algorithmic computation devices. Derek Zahn -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:39:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons From: [email protected] To: [email protected] yes, and because we do not currently know the precise layout of its cells, the brain is not made of cells... and because we do not know the precise layout of the water molecules in the ocean, it is not made of water, but rather of cosmic consciousness-stuff ;p ... the formulaic processes for generating thoughts from elementary mathematical patterns are very complex, as are the processes for generating the ocean from water molecules, and the brain from neurons, etc. etc. I have written a lot about how thoughts are generated, including irregular forms, but you are too technically illiterate to understand or intelligently discuss them ... alas... ben g On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: So Ben it should be no problem for you to explain how these theories generate/ coimputer diverse fonts. I suggest you haven’t the slightest clue – and nor would anyone else – and this is a total timewaster. The paper linked OTOH does represent an attempt to engage computationally with the problem of how algos might or might not generate diverse fonts/forms. Any comments on that? From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:58 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons According to the current understanding of nearly all scientists, the diversity of real world objects are generated by physical processes, which seem well described via a combination of the Standard Model & General Relativity theory But both of these theories are math theories, arbitrarily closely approximable via computer programs... (though to simulate the whole universe via a computer would require a very large computer program on a very large computer) So yeah... ... ben On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Totally irrelevant, no, Ben? Are you suggesting general relativity theory can be used to generate the endless range of diverse forms that comprise any real world class of objects, including classes of fonts, pace Hofstadter? Why not try string theory as well? (Perhaps there’s a general irrelevance theory that could explain such points as you’re making? ) From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:02 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] The Vast Field of Cultural Icons On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: John: So what are the formulaic processes for general object generation and recognition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_theory ;) ben We’re making further progress IMO because we’re both looking directly at the problem. Ben (and Opencog) and the vast majority of AGI-ers won’t do that. I’m going to say more on this in a while, (including reframing the problem still more precisely), but in the meantime, you & others might care to look at a specifically algorithmic consideration of the problem (in a form well-set by Hofstadter): Is there a Universal Image Generator? https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/3851/344cris.pdf?sequence=1 The conclusion: “though this is an abstract result, it may have import for several areas in graphics that deal with compressible signals. In essence, new representations and pattern generation algorithms will continue to be developed; there is no feasible “super algorithm” that is capable of all things.” Comments? AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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
<<wlEmoticon-smile[1].png>>
