On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My impressions on this topic are based on dim memories of reading > interviews with Conway on the subject, many years ago. They could be > incorrect in some parts or nuances, and are not something I'm at all > strongly attached to. I've got better things to do than dig up the stuff I > read on Conway's discovery of LIfe N years ago. IMHO this has essentially > nothing to do with OpenCogPrime, which was the theme that started this > thread, anyway... > > I do not think that an AGI design is going to be arrived at via anything > similar to random search, nor do I think that designing an AGI is a terribly > similar problem to discovering the Game of Life... > Ben, I don't quite agree again. I do think that similar techniques for what led to the discovery of the Game of Life are those that will produce AGI. I think the study of the Game of Life is for the Game of Life what the fields of AI and AGI are for AI and AGI themselves. In other words, there is nothing to do about AI or AGI but to look at the systems we have already around. I do think that any of those simple systems such as CA can achieve AGI of the kind we expect without having to do anything else! From my point of view it is just a matter of technological sophistication, of providing the necessary elements and interfaces to the real world and not of theoretical foundations or the reinvention of new algorithms. If the first is what AGI is focusing on, I think it is heading to the right direction, but it would be a mistake of the same kind to think of the AGI field as building AGI from a bottom-up approach than to think of the Game of Life as designed or engineered. Your term "AGI design" and "designing AGI" discourages me, though. However, I see this time you said that the Game of Life was discovered, something in which we agree. Best. > Good night... > Ben > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >>> >>> Well, there may have been a lot of trial and error in figuring out which >>> local, binary 2D CA rule would give rise to complex patterns (though I feel >>> pretty confident it was clever-intuition-guided trial and error, not true >>> random search...), but >>> >>> 1) the idea to look at that particular class of local, binary 2D CA rules >>> in the first place >>> >>> 2) the idea that a 2D local binary CA rule giving rise to apparently >>> complex patterns would actually give rise to Turing-complete behaviors >>> >>> were guided by Conway's excellent intuition into this particular class of >>> complex systems. Basically, his intuition told him where to look, and then >>> finding the actual rule was a sort of "parameter tuning" in a fairly small >>> discrete space. >>> >>> So I think this is a pretty good example of someone designing an >>> interesting complex system via >>> >>> * coming up with the basic system design using an intuitive understanding >>> >>> * setting the parameters of the system via intelligently-guided trial and >>> error >>> >>> However, one thing that wasn't done here was to try to create a system >>> that depends relatively smoothly rather than extremely sensitively on the >>> parameter values (in this case the "parameter" being the local rule). >>> >> >> This is amazing: you just wrote down a whole bunch of speculations, >> pulled out of thin air, without a shred of evidence for any of them. >> >> First, where is your evidence that Conway used "clever-intuition-guided >> trial and error, not true random search"? Are there any publications that >> make this claim? Are just guessing that he might have done? >> >> [Note, BTW, that this is almost impossible to prove: his goal was to find >> a CA that had the right balance between life and death, so how would you >> tell the difference between Conway having an intuition about a good place to >> look, and the possibility that there are lots of solutions out there, and he >> just blundered into one of them?] >> >> Second, you say that "the idea to look at that particular class of local, >> binary 2D CA rules in the first place" was "guided by Conway's excellent >> intuition into this particular class of complex systems". really? He looked >> non-binary CA rules as well. And how do you know he didn't just try the >> simplest things first, and it turns out that there are sufficiently many >> solutions that he blundered into one of them by accident (cf previous >> paragraph)? This is just your guess, unsupported by any evidence, and >> perhaps even not provable even in principle! >> >> Third, you say that "the idea that a 2D local binary CA rule giving rise >> to apparently complex patterns would actually give rise to Turing-complete >> behaviors" was also "guided by Conway's excellent intuition into this >> particular class of complex systems". I know of no evidence that Conway >> ever intended to make a system that could be used to implement a Turing >> machine: do you know that he did? And, in any case, is it not common >> knowledge, now, that vast numbers of CA can be used to build Turning >> machines? Didn't Wolfram set up a competition to see who could find the >> simplest CA that yields Turing-completeness? So it appears that if you just >> start building CA at random, you can make something that is Turing complete. >> >> Third, you say "Basically, his intuition told him where to look, and then >> finding the actual rule was a sort of "parameter tuning" in a fairly small >> discrete space." Again, this is nothing but Ben Goertzel's speculation. >> Where is the evidence that he "knew where to look"? >> >> Then, after all of this speculation pulled out of nowhere, you come to the >> conclusion that: >> >> > ... this is a pretty good example of someone designing an >> > interesting complex system via >> > >> > * coming up with the basic system design using an intuitive >> > understanding >> > >> > * setting the parameters of the system via intelligently-guided trial >> > and error >> >> You have established no such thing! I am truly impressed by your nerve >> though. >> >> Give me some evidence! :-) >> >> Hypothesi non fingo, remember.... >> >> >> >> >> Richard Loosemore >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> David Hart wrote: >>> >>> On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote: >>> >>> Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which >>> Conway's >>> efforts were described, and it is transparently clear from this >>> quote that the method Conway used was random search: >>> >>> >>> I believe this statement misinterprets the quote and severely >>> underestimates the amount of thought and design inherent in >>> Conway's invention. In my option, the stochastic search >>> methodologies (practiced mainly by his students) can be >>> considred 'tuning/improvement/tweaking' and NOT themselves part >>> of the high-level conceptual design. But, this topic is a >>> subjective interpretation rabbithole that is probably not worth >>> pursuing further. >>> >>> >>> No, not at all. >>> >>> Conway is still alive, you know. Why doesn't somebody ask him? >>> >>> I defend what I say to the hilt. Conway and his helpers knew what >>> target they were aiming for (they decided on one aspect of the >>> global behavior before time), but I believe they did nothing at all >>> besides try various possibilities until one of them worked. >>> >>> I can find no evidence, anywhere, of any theorems, or any >>> mathematical analysis that allowed them to target a specific set of >>> rules that would give them the birth-death ratio that they were >>> looking for. >>> >>> If anyone does believe that they did some analysis to achieve this >>> goal, the onus is on them to find it. Failing all else, ask Conway >>> himself. >>> >>> It is not good enough for people to go around making wild >>> allegations (as Linas did yesterday), without any supporting >>> evidence, and then for me to produce apparently clear >>> counter-evidence, only to have it dismissed by some vague suggestion >>> that perhaps I may have misinterpreted the evidence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Loosemore >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> agi >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >>> Director of Research, SIAI >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first >>> overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify < >>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [Powered by >>> Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Hector Zenil http://zenil.mathrix.org ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
