I’ll gladly put $1000 (or considerably more) down now publicly that neither
your nor any other word-based “so-called AGI” prog will generate a single thing
in 1/2/5 years – generativity, I think we can agree, being a test of AGI.
Jim:why do you make the assumption that people will understand what you are
saying? It is because we are all able to think using words.
That is absolute bollocks. There is no way on earth that you can work
out/understand the infinite ways in which 2 or more objects like “BALL” and
“BOX” can be conjoined by just looking at the words/labels for these objects.
And that should be fairly easy – and in your interests, if you were “really
really serious” – to test. Just set up a network of say 20 or however many
ball- and box-related words, and see if you can provide even the teeniest hint
of how generative conjunctions of ball and box will be produced – and the
slightest justification for your “it’s all words” claim above. Note that humans
have no difficulties imagining endless conjunctions of ball and box – as their
language use demonstrates.
You and others are **totally divorced** – TOTALLY - from the reality of real
world reasoning about real world objects - incl. BALL/BOX. And language is
the most important form of reasoning about real world objects.
The insanity is that you believe you can work out how objects fit together by
just looking at their *words/names.*
Will this KEY fit that LOCK?
“Oh let me/my computer just look at their semantic associations/network, and
I/we’ll tell you in no time”.
KEY - A small piece of shaped metal, with incisions cut to fit the wards of a
particular lock, that is inserted into a lock and turned to open...
LOCK - A mechanism for keeping a door, lid, etc., fastened, typically operated
by a particular key or combination.
“Ah well, that’s obvious then isn’t it? Keys fit locks.”
“But will this key fit that lock?”
“Let me have a look at my definitions again.”
You really have to 1) LOOK/IMAGINE and 2) LOOK/INVESTIGATE and 3) physically
EXPERIMENT to see whether two objects like key and lock fit together. (You may
be able to get away with just 1) but you may need 2) and possibly 3) as well).
Words and logic can never tell you whether objects will fit together.
How will BEN GOERTZEL and SHEILA RAPANTHANI have sex? What kinds of positions
will they be capable of? Will they be able to have sex at all?
“Oh let me/my computer just look at their semantic associations/network, and
I/we’ll tell you in no time”.
SHEILA might be a dwarf, or deformed, or blind. BEN may have his arm in a sling.
You gotta look. And that’s what the mind – the “mind’s eye” – does. Your mind
is able to visually (and with other senses) move ball and box around – to put
the ball on the edge of the box, or the left centre, or any other part – to
bounce the ball off any part of the box from any angle – to image the ball/box
deformed/crushed in endless ways and then interacting. You can imagine the box
a soggy mess and then imagine that the ball may have difficulty bouncing off
it. Or imagine a hole in the box so that the ball flies through.... and so on
ad infinitum.
You can’t do this with a list of words floating in a graph. You can endlessly
reconjoin words – but there is no verbal way to test whether the conjunctions
are physically possible.
If you were right, Jim, there would be no such thing as science and technology
– people who consider object conjunctions by means of thought experiments, and
real physical investigation, and real experiments – by physically and
mentally/imaginatively playing around with objects - there would just be
brilliant logicians like yourself.
We needed Francis Bacon to cure us of the DISEASE of logic in relation to real
world reasoning – it was standing in the way of physical investigation and the
birth of science – just as you and others are standing in the way of AGI
progress – polluting the culture with literally sense-less non-sense. It’s so
much easier to sit in your Chinese room and just look at the words for objects,
and play around with word definitions and logic – and all it produces is pure
bullshit – and, like AGI, zero progress.
YOU CAN’T WORK OUT HOW OBJECTS FIT TOGETHER - IF YOU CAN’T **SEE** WHETHER
THEY FIT TOGETHER.
But creatively lazy people like you will play endless logic games to “prove”
that “senseless” reasoning works – unable, of course, and too bloody lazy to
ever produce an empirical example – and appallingly ignorant of all the
relevant scientific research of cog. embodied sci.
Nobody should be spouting your GOFAI non-sense any more.
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:58 PM
To: AGI
Subject: RE: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say.
> From: tint...@blueyonder.co.uk
> 3. They can't even understand all combinations/constructions of *existing*
> words.
>
> "Put the red block on the green ball" - may be impossible. Or not. Neither a
> program or a human being can tell without looking and perhaps without
> physically experimenting. Jim is going to waste another year finding that
> out - and then forgetting it, and starting all over again.. and again.
And yet you can talk about such a thing as if it were sensible. How do we know
what you were thinking about. As far as we know when you say "block" you may be
thinking of a towel or something. So why do you make the assumption that
people will understand what you are saying? It is because we are all able to
think using words.
Thinking carefully about things is important. Yes a combination of sensory
devices would make the implementation of an AGI program better. But first
someone has to figure out how to make an AGI program that actually works. And
there is just no substitute for experimentation.
I think that you are in more danger of wasting another year finding out that
what you think you know about computer programs is not entirely accurate. Then
you will forget it and start all over again. And again. Your prediction is not
accurately based on what I have said, because I have repeatedly stated during
the past few months that we have to accept the results of our experiments with
integrity and that I was committed to spending this year testing my AGI
theories. So, my stated goal is almost an exact opposite of your prediction.
Seeing that you weren't even close to understanding my point of view, I have to
wonder where your prognostication came from. The one thing that I am pretty
sure of is that it came from you.
Jim Bromer
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
