Mike, Let me clarify further. What me and other computer scientists mean by program, is probably something like *"A formal and non-ambigous description of a deterministic system that operates over time"*. Thus, if you can describe something in nature with enough detail, your description is a program. As another example, if you write a book that describes the human mind formally in enough detail, that book in itself would become a program.
So when you say that we cannot write a program that is creative on the same level as humans, you basically state that it would be impossible to describe the human mind in a detailed enough way. This is certainly bogus, as this could be done theoretically by simply scanning and recording the state and connections of every neuron in a human mind. Another way to put it, is that your suggestion implies that we could never *understand *the human mind on a fine enough level, which is pretty upsetting and certainly not revolutionary. What computers have or have not done up until this point is completely besides the question, if we discuss the definition of program. Yes, enough powerful AGI would be revolutionary, but they would still be programs. What you is suggesting is equivalent to asking a painter to paint a revolutionary painting, without using paint. What should he do, stare intensely at the canvas until what happens? He could try to cheat, using dirt, or mud to paint. But most people would then just say he invented another kind of paint, namely the dirt paint, or the mud paint. It is just impossible to paint a painting without paint (unless your painting is intended to look the same as the empty canvas). Painting paintings without paint is not a radical idea, it is just plain futile or incorrect, depending on perspective. Why this topic is frustrating, is because you are roughly right in one aspect. Yes, computers and AI systems up until this point has been programmed in a much too direct way, where the connection between programmers lines of code, and the systems actions has been too close. E.g. there is a line of code saying *if(handIsHot()) moveHand(),* and where the robot system moves its hand when it becomes hot. But this is what we here call narrow AI and what we all here try to distance ourselves from. From what I can tell, Novamente is for example miles and miles and miles away from this kind of programming. In contrast, systems like Novamente studies input and builds and relates concepts to abstract goals and later form actions using different kinds of subtle methods. But a system like that is * complex* and you cannot expect Ben Goertzel to blurt out all this complexity in an email on this mailing list. You have to study the design in detail if you are interested in it. But the bottom line is, it is still programming in any way you choose to look at it (unless you want to use the word programming in some way that no other person on earth is using it, but in that case, be prepared to feel alone). You should focus on HOW we could make programs creative, rather loosing yourself in a strange quest to redefine well established terminology. It is completley besides the point. /Robert Wensman 2008/1/7, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Robert, > > Look, the basic reality is that computers have NOT yet been creative in > any significant way, and have NOT yet achieved AGI - general intelligence, - > or indeed any significant rulebreaking adaptivity; (If you disagree, please > provide examples. Ben keeps claiming/implying he's solved them or made > significant advances, but when pressed never provides any indication of > how). > > These are completely unsolved problems. Major creative problems. > > And I would suggest you have to be prepared for the solutions to be > revolutionary and groundshaking. > > If you are truly serious about solving these problems, I suggest, you > should prepared to be "hurt" - you should be ready to consider truly radical > ideas - for the ground on which you stand to be questioned - and be > seriously shaken up. You should WELCOME any and all of your assumptions > being questioned. Even if, let's say, what I or someone else suggests is in > the end nutty, drastic ideas are good for you to contemplate at least for a > while. > > Having said all this, I accept that what I have been saying offends this > community - I wasn't trying originally to push it, I got dragged into some > of that last discussion.by Ben. And I also accept that most of you are not > interested in going for the revolutionary, from whatever source. And I > shall try to restrict my comments unless someone wishes to engage with me - > although BTW I am ever more confident of my broad philosophical/ > psychological position - the mind really doesn't work that way. > > I may possibly make one last related post in the not too distant future > about the nature of problems, and which are/aren't suitable for programs - > but just ignore it. > > > > Mike Tinter, > > If you really do not think that digital computers can be creative by > definition, I do not understand why you would like to join a mailing list > with AGI researchers? Computers operate by using software, thus, they need > to be programmed. It just seems to me that you do not understand what the > word "program" means. Even if you use use a computer that do not need to be > loaded with a program, guess what, such a computer could be considered to > have an initial program. > > The very determinism of the universe implicates that everything runs > according to a program, including your ramblings here about creativity. I > have to ask you a question, do you think the universe and everything in it > runs according to deterministic laws of nature? Do you accept that you are a > part of this deterministic reality? Well, in that case Ive got news for you, > you are a program also! As evidence I would present your DNA, a program > encoded and stored in molecular structures. > > Have you ever heard of computational equivalence? Do you know what it > means? > > Also, I feel annoyed that you compare the Novamente architecture with > something that just takes instructions, like "do this, do that, then do > this" etc. It seems you need to spend greater effort in studying this > architecture, for example by reading The Hidden Pattern. > > I feel you are in great need of widening your mind to understand chaotic > or fractal processes. Take a forest for example, even in all its complexity > and diversity, it is still governed by very simple and basic laws namely the > laws of nature. By mimicking some of these laws at an appropriate level, > such as shape level, programmers can create forests that to a very large > extent looks like real forests: http://www.speedtree.com/. A generator > such as speedtree could generate entire forests of miles and miles of trees, > with no single two trees looking the same. Even though the lines of code > producing the trees are pretty simple, the outcome in creativity and > originality is vast. > > The same thing applies to a human mind. Even though the output of a human > mind is amazingly diverse and creative, its program is still goverened by > the basic laws of nature, and the DNA program. What AGI designers tries to > do is to is to mimic this process. > > The concepts of program and determinism are pretty well established within > the scientific community, please do not try to redefine them like you do. It > just creates a lot of confusion. I think what you really want to use is the > concept of adaptability, or maybe you could say you want an AGI system that > is *programmed in an indirect way* (meaning that the program instructions > are very far away from what the system actually does). But please do not say > things like "we should write AGI systems that are not programmed". It hurts > my ears/eyes. > > /Robert Wensman > > > > 2008/1/7, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Well we (Penrose & co) are all headed in roughly the same direction, but > > we're taking different routes. > > > > If you really want the discussion to continue, I think you have to put > > out > > something of your own approach here to "spontaneous creativity" (your > > terms) > > as requested. > > > > Yes, I still see the mind as following "instructions" a la "briefing", > > but > > only odd ones, not a whole rigid set of them., a la programs. And the > > instructions are "open-ended" and non-deterministically open to > > interpretation, just as my briefing/instruction to you - "Ben go and get > > me > > something nice for supper" - is. Oh, and the instructions that drive us, > > i.e. emotions, are always conflicting, e.g [Ben:] "I might like to.. but > > do > > I really want to get that bastard anything for supper? Or have the time > > to, > > when I am on the very verge of creating my stupendous AGI?" > > > > Listen, I can go on and on - the big initial deal is the claim that the > > mind > > isn't - & no successful AGI can be - driven by a program, or > > thoroughgoing > > SERIES/SET of instructions - if it is to solve even minimal general > > adaptive, let alone hard creative problems. No structured approach will > > work > > for an ill-structured problem. > > > > You must give some indication of how you think a program CAN be > > generally > > adaptive/ creative - or, I would argue, squares (programs are so square, > > man) can be circled :). > > > > > Mike, > > > > > >> The short answer is that I don't believe that computer *programs* can > > be > > >> creative in the hard sense, because they presuppose a line of > > enquiry, a > > >> predetermined approach to a problem - > > > ... > > >> But I see no reason why computers couldn't be "briefed" rather than > > >> programmed, and freely associate across domains rather than working > > along > > >> predetermined lines. > > > > > > But the computer that is being "briefed" is still running some > > software > > > program, > > > hence is still "programmed" -- and its responses are still determined > > by > > > that program (in conjunction w/ the environment, which however it > > > perceives > > > only thru a digital bit stream) > > > > > >> I don't however believe that purely *digital* computers are capable > > of > > >> all > > >> the literally imaginative powers (as already discussed elsewhere) > > that > > >> are > > >> also necessary for true creativity and general intelligence. > > > > > > I don't know how you define a "literally imaginative power". > > > > > > So, it seems like you are saying > > > > > > -- digital computer software can never truly be creative or possess > > > general > > > intelligence > > > > > > Is this your assertion? > > > > > > It is not an original one of course: Penrose, Dreyfus and many others > > have > > > argued the same point. The latter paragraph of yours I've quoted > > could > > > be straight out of "The Emeperor's New Mind" by Penrose. > > > > > > Penrose then notes that quantum computers can compute only the same > > > stuff that digital computers can; so he posits that general > > intelligence > > > is > > > possible only for "quantum gravity computers", which is what he posits > > > the brain is. > > > > > > I think Penrose is most probably wrong, but at least I understand what > > > he is saying... > > > > > > I'm just trying to understand what your perspective actually is... > > >> > > - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > 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/?&; > > > > ------------------------------ > 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/?&; > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1212 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 > 10:55 PM > > ------------------------------ > 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/?&; > ----- 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=82606378-9c9fd1
