I followed your advice and did the same, which gave me some relief, but I still see so many angry/frustrated *replies *to Tintner that I have quit reading this list. As much as I hate to cast anyone aside or leave them behind, he has made himself utterly intractable, so I'm totally for banning him.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Russell Wallace <[email protected]>wrote: > I solved the problem for myself by killfiling Mike years ago, and it seems > to me everyone else should do the same, unless you just find arguing with > him to be a pleasantly futile pastime, like learning to play the > octaventral heebiephone. > > However, if there's a reason why other people don't find this to be an > adequate solution to the problem, then I would say go ahead and ban him > from the list. > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:03 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/303/1658954-f53d1a3f> | >> 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/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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
