Mike, Thanks for the reference to Dennis Noble, he sounds very interesting and his views on Systems Biology as expressed on his Wikipedia page are perfectly in line with my own thoughts and biases.
I agree in spirit with your basic criticisms regarding current AI and creativity. However, it must be pointed out that if you abandon determinism, you find yourself in the world of dualism, or worse. There are several ways out of this conundrum, one involves complexity/emergence (global behavior cannot be understood in terms of reduction to local behavior), another involves algorithmic complexity (or complicatedness, behavior cannot be predicted due to limitations of our inborn abilities to mentally model such complicatedness), although either can be predicted in principle with sufficient computational resources. This is true of humans as well - and if you think it isn't, once again, you're committing yourself to some kind of dualistic position (e.g., we are motivated by our spirit). If you accept the proposition that the appearance of free will in an agent comes down to one's ability to predict its behavior, then either of the schemes above serves to produce free will (or the illusion of it, if you prefer). Thus is creativity possible while preserving determinism. Of course, you still need to have an explanation for how creativity emerges in either case, but in contrast to what you said before, some AI folks have indeed worked on this issue. Terren --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - the Computer/Organiser > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 12:47 AM > Terren, > > If you think it's all been said, please point me to the > philosophy of AI > that includes it. > > A programmed machine is an organized structure. A keyboard > (and indeed a > computer with keyboard) are something very different - > there is no > organization to those 26 letters etc. They can be freely > combined and > sequenced to create an infinity of texts. That is the very > essence and > manifestly, the whole point, of a keyboard. > > Yes, the keyboard is only an instrument. But your body - > and your brain - > which use it, are themselves keyboards. They consist of > parts which also > have no fundamental behavioural organization - that can be > freely combined > and sequenced to create an infinity of sequences of > movements and thought - > dances, texts, speeches, daydreams, postures etc. > > In abstract logical principle, it could all be > preprogrammed. But I doubt > that it's possible mathematically - a program for > selecting from an infinity > of possibilities? And it would be engineering madness - > like trying to > preprogram a particular way of playing music, when an > infinite repertoire is > possible and the environment, (in this case musical > culture), is changing > and evolving with bewildering and unpredictable speed. > > To look at computers as what they are (are you disputing > this?) - machines > for creating programs first, and following them second, is > a radically > different way of looking at computers. It also fits with > radically different > approaches to DNA - moving away from the idea of DNA as > coded program, to > something that can be, as it obviously can be, played like > a keyboard - see > Dennis Noble, The Music of Life. It fits with the fact > (otherwise > inexplicable) that all intelligences have both deliberate > (creative) and > automatic (routine) levels - and are not just automatic, > like purely > programmed computers. And it fits with the way computers > are actually used > and programmed, rather than the essentially fictional > notion of them as pure > turing machines. > > And how to produce creativity is the central problem of AGI > - completely > unsolved. So maybe a new approach/paradigm is worth at > least considering > rather than more of the same? I'm not aware of a single > idea from any AGI-er > past or present that directly addresses that problem - are > you? > > > > > Mike, > > > > There's nothing particularly creative about > keyboards. The creativity > > comes from what uses the keyboard. Maybe that was your > point, but if so > > the digression about a keyboard is just confusing. > > > > In terms of a metaphor, I'm not sure I understand > your point about > > "organizers". It seems to me to refer simply > to that which we humans do, > > which in essence says "general intelligence is > what we humans do." > > Unfortunately, I found this last email to be quite > muddled. Actually, I am > > sympathetic to a lot of your ideas, Mike, but I also > have to say that your > > tone is quite condescending. There are a lot of smart > people on this list, > > as one would expect, and a little humility and respect > on your part would > > go a long way. Saying things like "You see, > AI-ers simply don't understand > > computers, or understand only half of them." > More often than not you > > position yourself as the sole source of enlightened > wisdom on AI and other > > subjects, and that does not make me want to get to > know your ideas any > > better. Sorry to veer off topic here, but I say these > things because I > > think some of your ideas are valid and could really > benefit from an > > adjustment in your > > presentation of them, and yourself. If I didn't > think you had anything > > worthwhile to say, I wouldn't bother. > > > > Terren > > > > --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: [agi] A NewMetaphor for Intelligence - > the Computer/Organiser > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:42 PM > >> Terren's request for new metaphors/paradigms > for > >> intelligence threw me > >> temporarily off course.Why a new one - why not the > old one? > >> The computer. > >> But the whole computer. > >> > >> You see, AI-ers simply don't understand > computers, or > >> understand only half > >> of them > >> > >> What I'm doing here is what I said > philosophers do - > >> outline existing > >> paradigms and point out how they lack certain > essential > >> dimensions. > >> > >> When AI-ers look at a computer, the paradigm that > they > >> impose on it is that > >> of a Turing machine - a programmed machine, a > device for > >> following programs. > >> > >> But that is obviously only the half of > it.Computers are > >> obviously much more > >> than that - and Turing machines. You just have to > look at > >> them. It's > >> staring you in the face. There's something > they have > >> that Turing machines > >> don't. See it? Terren? > >> > >> They have - a keyboard. > >> > >> And as a matter of scientific, historical fact, > computers > >> are first and > >> foremost keyboards - i.e.devices for CREATING > programs on > >> keyboards, - and > >> only then following them. [Remember how AI gets > almost > >> everything about > >> intelligence back to front?] There is not and > never has > >> been a program that > >> wasn't first created on a keyboard. > Indisputable fact. > >> Almost everything > >> that happens in computers happens via the > keyboard. > >> > >> So what exactly is a keyboard? Well, like all > keyboards > >> whether of > >> computers, musical instruments or typewriters, it > is a > >> creative instrument. > >> And what makes it creative is that it is - you > could say - > >> an "organiser." > >> > >> A device with certain "organs" (in this > case > >> keys) that are designed to be > >> creatively organised - arranged in creative, > improvised > >> (rather than > >> programmed) sequences of action/ > association./"organ > >> play. > >> > >> And an extension of the body. Of the organism. All > >> organisms are > >> "organisers" - devices for creatively > sequencing > >> actions/ > >> associations./organs/ nervous systems first and > developing > >> fixed, orderly > >> sequences/ routines/ "programs" second. > >> > >> All organisers are manifestly capable of an > infinity of > >> creative, novel > >> sequences, both rational and organized, and crazy > and > >> disorganized. The > >> idea that organisers (including computers) are > only meant > >> to follow > >> programs - to be straitjacketed in movement and > thought - > >> is obviously > >> untrue. Touch the keyboard. Which key comes first? > >> What's the program for > >> creating any program? And there lies the secret of > AGI. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------------------- 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
