I would say that the best way to simulate human intelligence with
diversity and creativity is to create not one AGI but many. The only
way to insure diversity and natural selection like our own evolution
is to simultaneously create multiple AGI's so that we have a better
chance of the emergence of the best path for the evolution of
friendly AGI.
I am new to this list. Is there anyone out there who has addressed
this issue? We have many people who are very gifted with math and
science who are in the forefront of AGI, but "random" creativity and
seat of the pants intuition is a really big part of human evolution.
If we create multiple AGI's we have a chance that all of our traits
are developed (in the same way that we are genetically programed) in
some way to create a community of sorts that hopefully will be able
to sustain our legacy of diversity and creative thought.
Dave Butler
On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
I think I've found a simple test of cog. sci.
I take the basic premise of cog. sci. to be that the human mind -
and therefore its every activity, or sequence of action - is
programmed. Eric Baum epitomises cog. sci."Baum proposes [in What
Is Thought] that underlying mind is a complex but compact program
that corresponds to the underlying structure of the world.."
As you know, I contend that that is absurd - that, yes, every human
activity - having a conversation, writing a post, making love,
doing a drawing etc - is massively "subprogrammed", containing
often v. large numbers of routines - but as a whole, each activity
is a "free composition". Those routines, along with isolated
actions, are more or less freely thrown together - "freely
associated" . As a whole, our activities are more or less "crazy"
walks - I use "crazy" to mean both structured and chaotic - and
effectively self-contradictory.
(This has huge implications for AGI - you guys believe that an AGI
must be programmed for its activities, I contend that free
composition instead is essential for truly adaptive, general
intelligence and is the basis of all animal and human activities).
So how to test cog sci? I contend that the proper, *ideal* test is
to record humans' actual streams of thought about any problem -
like, say, writing an essay - and even just a minute's worth will
show that, actually, humans have major difficulties following
anything like a joined-up, rational train of thought - or any
stream that looks remotely like it could be programmed overall.
(That includes more esoteric forms of programming like random
kinds). Actually, humans follow more or less roving, crazy streams
of thought - not chaotic by any means, but not perfectly "joined
up" either - more or less free-form, a bit like free verse -
somewhat structured but only loosely).
I still think that this is the proper, essential approach to
studying the connectedness, programmed or otherwise, of human
thought. But it is obviously a complicated affair - even if one
could record those streams of thought absolutely faithfully.
And science likes simple tests/ experiments - the more
mathematical and measurable the better.
So here's a simple mathematical test, which everyone can try.
"Do an abstract line drawing." (for let's say 30 secs. - on this
particular site)
Here are a few of my spontaneous masterpieces:
http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?
aFileType=&_nolivecache&sessionID=&message=&room_email=&from_email=tin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]&from_name=mike
tintner&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&to_name=&aDrawingID=20080105
_194101926_970043768_gbr&transcript=&_lscid= .
http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?
aFileType=&_nolivecache&sessionID=&message=&room_email=&from_email=tin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]&from_name=mike
tintner&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&to_name=&aDrawingID=20080105
_194033348_926554557_gbr&transcript=&_lscid= .
http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?
aFileType=&_nolivecache&sessionID=&message=&room_email=&from_email=tin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]&from_name=mike
tintner&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&to_name=&aDrawingID=20080105
_193922629_715992016_gbr&transcript=&_lscid= .
http://www.imagination3.com/LaunchPage?
aFileType=&_nolivecache&sessionID=&message=&room_email=&from_email=tin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]&from_name=mike
tintner&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&to_name=&aDrawingID=20080105
_193734879_1708083161_gbr&transcript=&_lscid= .
The beauty of this site is that it does indeed record the actual
stream of thought/ drawing - and not just the end result. (It would
be v. interesting to see many other people's tests).
Now you guys are mathematicians - I contend that those drawings are
indeed crazy, spontaneous, free compositions - they have themes and
patterns in parts and are by no means entirely random, but they are
certainly not patterned or programmed overall either. Can you find
an overall pattern or program to any of them - let alone a program
that underlies ALL of them? Or, if you prefer, can you find a suite
of programs?
(I guess a more formal way of expressing the test is that on any
given page, it is possible to draw an infinite number of line
drawings which are a) structured b) chaotic c) crazy (mixtures of
both) - and, in principle, programmed or non-programmed. And to
assert that human activities are programmed is, in the final
analysis, to assert that there is no such thing as a crazy set of
lines. But please comment).
What this test shows, I believe, is the bleeding obvious - humans
can and do produce truly spontaneous,crazy, nonprogrammed,ad hoc,
unplanned sequences of action. Well, it should be obvious but many
of you guys will fight to the death to defy the obvious. So one
needs a simple test.
It's a considerable historical irony that "painting by numbers" was
born very roughly at the same time as AI/ cog sci , c. 1950.
Cog sci. is the view that we live - paint, eat, copulate, talk,
etc. - by numbers. That view is wrong. We live, paint etc. by
free composition. (And we find both our own and nature's created
forms "beautiful" or "ugly" precisely because only a relative few
are highly structured/ effectively programmed while the majority
are much wilder and a little too freely composed).
P.S. I welcome any proper mathematical formulations of the idea
behind the test and also any suggested variations on the test.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
b26593
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=82349375-6e8785
