Yeah. I wasn't happy to seem the same old stuff being posted by Mike as the last time I was here and in pretty much the same tones. I don't see much growth happening there.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm curious how many people think we should start a policy of banning > obvious trolls from this email list? > > I don't have an extremely strong opinion one way or the other. However, I > note that the presence of so much trolling does cause me to avoid looking > at the list most of the time, because my default assumption is that the > average post will not be interesting... > > The obvious inspiration for this question is Mike Tintner. While he has a > certain sincerity to him, nevertheless, he is basically a troll on this > list in the Internet sense. He thinks everyone researching in the AGI > field is badly misguided and tells us so, repetitively, over and over. > And he really doesn't understand the basic concepts of computer science -- > he thinks there are "non-algorithmic computer programs", or ways to operate > computers non-algorithmically... which really is not true if you take any > standard definition of "algorithm" ... > > Occasionally Tintner has spurred interesting discussions. But mostly he > just says the same boring, misunderstanding-based stuff over and over > again... > > Anyway, I can go either way on this personally, but I'm curious what other > list members think. Should we ban Tintner and any other similar trolls who > emerge, or let them use the list as their trolling-ground? > > Note: I absolutely would NOT want to start banning people for believing > AGI is impossible and saying so, or positing unpopular ideas, or saying > everyone in the field is misguided, etc. But being sooooo repetitive with > the same exact points over and over again -- to the point where you're the > most active poster on the list, yet you don't really understand the core > technical concepts underlying the field the list exists to discuss -- this > verges from nonconformist thinking into trolling, IMO... > > Curious for others' thoughts.. ? > > -- Ben > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:29 AM, tintner michael <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Samantha: Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you >> think results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of >> biologically encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? >> >> If you want to know, listen to: >> >> Samantha: Uh, a human baby has to do a lot of bumping up against the >> world, a lot of grasping, trying to move, trying to focus eyes, learning to >> make sounds intelligible. >> >> It's nondeterministically programmed improvisation - >> nondeterministically programmed improvised goal-seeking. That's what every >> infant does when it flails aroundin the ways you mention, that's what >> you're doing right now as you compose your posts. That's what all forms of >> creativity entail and very visibly demonstrably entail. You think creatives >> searching for inspiration, sometimes for years, are following algos - >> step-by-step preplanned courses of action ? What's the algo for a creative >> block? What's the algo that drives AGI projectbuilders to say "5 years if >> we really really try" when he actually hasn't the slightest ideas? What do >> you think H SImon was talking about when he talked about nonprogrammed, >> unstructured thinking as distinct from the programmed kind? >> >> I have written a lot about this here, Samantha - you sound like you're >> coming in at the tail-end. >> >> There are no creative algoirthms/recipes - algos are just amplified human >> routines, low level stuff if extremely useful. And whenever an AGI-er >> starts to offer a concrete example of "creative algorithms" as PM has just >> done, they only end up offering excuses. Always. >> >> >> >> On 3 December 2013 01:19, Samantha Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you think >>> results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of biologically >>> encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? If it is a set of algorithms, >>> however encoded, then why can't it be implemented on a different substrate? >>> Perhaps your notion of "algorithm" is a bit too limited. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM, tintner michael < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Oh please, PM. This is still dishonest. Ben tried this "read x.." ploy >>>> several times - never was anything there. >>>> >>>> Put up your example of algorithmic creativity for the enlightenment of >>>> all here. You can't. Neither can anyone else. >>>> >>>> Don';t lecture about "reasoning ability" until you're capable of >>>> reasoning from empirical examples. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2 December 2013 19:13, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> As a philosopher, I would think that you would like to read. >>>>> I hope you're not being lazy. >>>>> >>>>> Here's a starting point.... >>>>> >>>>> http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-563.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I said, once you have context, I will be happy to discuss this with >>>>> you. >>>>> Gain some context and let's discuss. This is the internet, it's not >>>>> that hard. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> ~PM >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:23:29 +0000 >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> PM;We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. ..... >>>>> >>>>> That is the most cowardly and dishonest statement. It is typical. I am >>>>> sick of this kind of dishonesty. Put up or shut up. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 December 2013 18:17, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. Do a little research. Read >>>>> the book. >>>>> Let's discuss when you've obtained Drescher's thesis (probably online) >>>>> or read his book. >>>>> >>>>> Always happy to discuss... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> ~PM. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:06:54 +0000 >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> PM The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel >>>>> situations >>>>> >>>>> Synthesized what new from what? A proper specific example please.Not a >>>>> sleight-of-hand handwave. >>>>> >>>>> I guarantee you're talking nonsense. Prove me wrong. You should be >>>>> delighted to discuss - this is the most important thing in AGI - far more >>>>> important than any of the narrow AI techniques you often discuss in >>>>> detail. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 December 2013 17:59, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Gary Drescher's thesis qua book "Made Up Minds". >>>>> >>>>> The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel >>>>> situations. >>>>> >>>>> True Creativity. True Construction. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Tintner, this is the meme that you need to surpress: "*a >>>>> creative algorithm is a physical impossibility*". >>>>> >>>>> It is interfering with your reasoning ability, and creating a blind >>>>> spot for you. >>>>> >>>>> ~PM >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:41:44 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> "Theoretically, contrary to Tintner's argument, it would be feasible >>>>> to use CBR to discover and represent truly novel situations. However, >>>>> this >>>>> theoretical argument is not easy" >>>>> >>>>> One example of this creativity. From anywhere or anyone.. Actual or >>>>> theoretical. >>>>> >>>>> I repeat : a creative algorithm is a physical impossibility like >>>>> perpetual motion, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation of wine >>>>> into the blood of Christ and other such religious fictions of creativity. >>>>> And a bleeding obvious impossibility if you could just once turn your >>>>> attention from the "architecture" of algorithms to the finished buildings >>>>> they produce.. Then you'd see algorithms can't produce new building >>>>> blocks.Only the same old Lego buildings. >>>>> >>>>> If no one can give even a theoretical example - not the slightest >>>>> proof of concept - you are engaging in a Giant Wank. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >>>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>>>> 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >>>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>>>> 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/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | >>>> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>> 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/303/212726-deec6279> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. > James T. Kirk > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > 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
