Steve - coming back to the original question, by computing in 4D what I understand is something like using constant step-sizes in a stochastic gradient descent like algorithm. Is that what you mean?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > Mike, > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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. >> > > It looks to me like our society is going from actually experiencing > reality, to vicariously experiencing pseudo-reality. In the process, they > have lost track of what reality really is. > > Note that some people seek upon death to put themselves into a > pseudo-reality, rather than in 'droids in our reality, as though > pseudo-reality is EASIER to completely create than reality is to merely > interact with. Of course they are right, but only in the movies. > >> >> 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. >> > > Yea, we may just have to sit this one out, while they beat their heads > against a brick wall. > >> >> Your thinking that maths is central is also a throwback to the outgoing >> culture – maths cannot produce movies, >> > > You might not have noticed, but there have been several recent movies made > by computer. > > because movies are overwhelmingly about natural irregular bodies moving. >> And most movement is irregular. >> > > These movies are complete with objects being fragmented, the fragments > interacting with themselves and everything else, etc. > > >> Maths is not art – which does deal with irregular bodies. >> > > Perhaps you have missed some of the computer art shows? > > >> “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. >> > > I suspect that our disagreement as over the terms "math" and "maths" > > "maths" refers to a particular specified group of mathematical techniques. > I agree that techniques do not now exist to compute learned perceptions, > etc. > > "math" refers to all techniques, now and forever in the future, for > representing things as symbols in a way that facilitates their manipulation > to solve problems. Even this English sentence is a "math" where alphabetic > symbols represent the real world, in a way that facilitates this discussion. > > I see absolutely no impediment for math (but not present-day maths) to > eventually conquer the perceptual and cognitive sciences. No impediment > that is besides "young bulls" like Ben, who charge on ahead without nearly > enough to do anything but pollute the environment for the "old bulls" who > will follow. > > *There once was a young bull who said to an old bull "Look up on the hill > there. There are COWS up there. I'm going to run up there and get me one." > The old bull responded "You just run along son, I'll take my time and get > the rest of 'em." > * > AGI, if it ever comes into existence, will be created by old bulls, not > young bulls. This has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with > mindset. > > Ben's karma is obviously that of Wolfgang von > Kempelen<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_von_Kempelen>, > a genius who blew his reputation early, so that major developments he made > later in life were ignored by science, were nearly lost to history, and he > died poor. AGI is probably forming Ben even more than Ben is forming AGI, > which I can see from Ben's shifting perspective over the last few years. As > with von Kempelen, this education is probably coming too late for Ben to > reap the benefits. Others are following this lead, apparently because they > can't see where it is heading. > > Steve > =================== > >> *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 8:35 AM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *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 <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/303/15717384-a248fe41> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
