Steve,
This is basically down to a transition from a textual culture which is
overwhelmingly static to a multimedia culture in which the dominant media are
moving – moving picture – media.
What is crucial here is not simply the introduction of new media, but the
ability to easily ANALYSE those media. That is something we are just acquiring
right now with appropriate programs, even though tv/movies have dominated the
culture quantitatively for some 50 years.
Your thinking that maths is central is also a throwback to the outgoing culture
– maths cannot produce movies, because movies are overwhelmingly about natural
irregular bodies moving. And most movement is irregular. Maths is not art –
which does deal with irregular bodies. “They” – the others in this discussion
– can’t see that our fundamental perception of the world both naturally and now
via media is of a movie; you can’t see that maths cannot formularise the
irregular forms of the world. Yet.
From: Steve Richfield
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 8:35 AM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] 3 vs 4 Dimensional Computing
Anastsios,
This discussion may have revealed the psychotic condition that underlies
AGIsm!!!
Nearly everyone sees that things have shape in 3D. People who have looked at
the issue see that they have shape in 4D. EVERYTHING has a beginning and an
end, Between the beginnings and the ends things change their 3D shape. In all
respects, everything exists in 4D and has all of the characteristics of shape.
We learn about our world by observing the shapes of things. Take away a
dimension, that at best this becomes difficult, and often it becomes impossible
to "learn" without some sort of supervised learning.
To illustrate, consider the following thought-experiment, which you can easily
performe in the real world. Have a friend purchase a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle,
assemble the puzzle (and note how long it takes him to assemble the puzzle),
discard all of the edge pieces, disassemble the remaining puzzle, put the
puzzle in an unmarked container that does NOT contain any indication of the
image on the puzzle, and present it to you to assemble.
You will find assembling the puzzle without the edge pieces (a 2D edge) or the
picture (adjacent frame information) to be EXTREMELY difficult - but not quite
impossible. Note how much longer it took you to assemble the same (but smaller)
puzzle that has only ~880 pieces.
This is what present-day AGI is trying to do - discarding information that may
(or may not) be absolutely critical, and in the process making the problem
orders of magnitude more difficult if not completely impossible. People are now
wasting decades of their lives trying to make something work with one (or more)
too few dimensions to describe the shapes of objects that they seek to learn to
recognize and manipulate.
Notice that Mike Tintner, the same guy who thinks that AGI transcends
mathematics, saw this as clearly as you see your keyboard in from of you, yet
this seems absurd to you. I find this to be absolutely fascinating.
I think this may be a MAJOR discovery - not about AGI, but about the people who
now work on AGI. With such a perceptual blind spot, AGI may truly be impossible
to ever achieve - at least by the people now working on it.
Perhaps some sort of "entrance exam" is needed for people working in AGI - to
detect such perceptual anomalies?
Any other thoughts about this?
Steve
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
