I'm not even going to read your whole email. I'll give you a great example of a "formula" handling unknown objects. The goal of the formula is to scan any unknown object and produce a 3D model of it using laser scanning. The objects are unknown, but that doesn't mean you can't handle unknown inputs. They all have things in common. Objects all have surfaces (at least the vast majority). So, whatever methods you can apply to analyze object surfaces, will work for the vast majority of objects. So, you *CAN* handle unknown objects. The same type of solution can be applied to many other problems, including AGI. The complete properties of the object or concept may be unknown, but the components that can be used to describe it are usually known.
Your claim is baseless. Dave On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Dave:You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that > can't > > Sure I do. > > **There is no such thing as a formula (or program as we currently > understand it) that can or is meant to handle UNSPECIFIED, (ESP NEW, > UNKNOWN) KINDS OF ACTIONS AND OBJECTS** > > Every program is essentially a formula for a set form activity which > directs how to take a closed set of **specified kinds of actions and > objects** - e,g, > > a + b + c + d + = .... > > [take an a and a b and a c and a d ..] > > in order to produce set forms of products and procedures - (set > combinations of those a,b,c,and d actions and objects) > > A recipe that specifies a set kind of cherry cake with set ingredients. > [GA's, if you're wondering, are merely glorified recipes for mixing and > endlessly remixing the same set of specific ingredients. Even random > programs work with specified actions and objects.] > > There is no formula or program that says: > > "take an a and a b and a c.... oh, and "something else" - a certain 'je > ne sais quoi' - I don't know what it is, but you may be able to recognize it > when you find it.Just keep looking " > > There is no formula of the form > > "A + B + C + D + ETC. = " > > ["ETC."= "et cetera/some other unspecified things" ] > > still less > > "A + B + C + D + ETC ^ETC = " > > ["some other things" x "some other operations"] > > That, I trust you will agree, is a contradiction of a formula and a program > - more like an anti-formula/program. There are no "et cetera" formulas, and > no logical or mathematical symbols for "etc" are there? > > But to be creative and produce new kinds of products and procedures, small > and trivial as well as large, you have to be able to work with and find just > such **unspecified (and esp. new) kinds of actions and objects.** - et > ceteras. > > If you want to develop a new kind of "fruit cake" or "new kind of cherry > cake" or even make a slightly different stew or more or less the same > cherry cake but without the maraschinos wh. have gone missing, then you have > to be able to work with and find new kinds of ingredients and mix/prepare > them in new kinds of ways - new exotic kinds of fruit and other foods in new > mixes and mashes and fermentations - et cetera x et cetera. > > If you want to develop a new kind of word or alphabet, (or develop a new > kind of "formula" as I just did above, then you have to be able to work > with and find new kinds of letters and symbols and abbreviations (as I just > did) - etc. > > If you even want to engage with any part of the real world at the most > mundane level - walk down a street say - you have to be able to be creative > and deal with new unspecified kinds of actions and objects that you may find > there - because you can't predict what that street will contain. > > And to be creative, you do indeed have to start not from a perfectly, > fully specified formula, but something more like an "et cetera > anti-formula" - a v. imperfectly and partially specified *conceptual > paradigm*, such as -: > > "if you want to make a new different kind of cake/ house/ structure, you'll > probably need an a and a b and a c.... but you'll also need "some other > things" - some 'je ne sais quoi's" - I don't know what they are, -- but you > may be able to recognize them when you find them.Just keep looking. And I'm > not quite sure,how you're going to fit all those things together, or how > many you'll need, but it doesn't really matter that much as long as they do > fit somehow - and I'm sure you'll think of something " > > And that is in essence and indeed just how professional creatives - in > fact, I think all creatives period, including all essaywriters in > education - are actually briefed (rather than programmed) - , that is more > or less how you must have been briefed over and over as programmers. > > It's no use offering logical arguments to the contrary, you must produce an > empirical example of this magical formula/program that can actually enable > creativity and work with *unspecified kinds of actions and objects* . > Billions of formulae and programs have been written - you are surrounded by > them, immersed in them - you should be able to but you won't, find one of > them that works with *unspecified kinds of actions and objects.* (Or you > can always try and explain how formulae that are clearly designed to be > setform can somehow simultaneously be freeform and embrace et cetera" ). > > There are by the same token no branches of logic and maths that work with > *unspecified kinds of actions and objects.* (Mathematicians who invent new > formulae have to work with and develop new kinds of objects - but normal > maths can't help them do this). > > The whole of rationality - incl. all rational technology - only works with > specified kinds of actions and objects. > > **One of the most basic rationales of rationality is "let's stop everyone > farting around making their own versions of products with their own > differently specified actions and objects; let's specify/standardise the > actions and objects that everyone must use. Let's start making standard > specification cherry cakes with standard ingredients, and standard > mathematical sums with standard numbers and operations, and standard logical > variables with standard meanings [and cut out any kind of et cetera] " ** > > (And for much the same reason programs can't - aren't meant to - handle > concepts. Every concept , like "chair" has to refer to a general class of > objects embracing et ceteras - new, unspecified, yet-to-be-invented kinds of > objects and ones that you simply haven't heard of yet, as well as > specified, known kinds of object . Concepts are wonderful cognitive tools > for embracing unspecified objects. Concepts, for example, like "things", > "objects", "actions", "do something" - "anything" "all sorts of things" - > "everything you can possibly think of" even "write totally new kinds of > programs - anti-programs" - "et cetera" - such concepts endow humans with > massive creative freedom and scope of reference. > > You along with the whole of AI/AGI are effectively claiming that there is > or can be a formula/program for dealing with the unknown - i.e. unknown > kinds of objects. It's patent absurdity - and counter to the whole spirit > of logic and rationality - in fact lunacy. You'll wonder in years to come > how so smart people could be so dumb. Could think they're producing > programs that can make anything - can make "cars" or "cakes" - any car or > cake - when the rest of the world and his uncle can see that they're only > producing very specific brands of car and cake (with very specific > objects/parts). VW Beetles not "cars" let alone "vehicles" let alone "forms > of transportation" let alone "means of travel" let alone "universal" > programs. . > > I'm full of it? AI/AGI is full of the most amazing hype about its > "generality" and "creativity" wh. you have clearly swallowed whole . > Programs are simply specialist procedures for producing specialist products > and procedures with specified kinds of actions and objects - they cannot > deal with unspecified kinds of actions and objects, period. You won't > produce any actual examples to the contrary. > > > > *From:* David Jones <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:00 PM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI > > Correction: > > Mike, you are so full of it. There is a big difference between *can* and > *don't*. You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say > [they] can't. > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM, David Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mike, you are so full of it. There is a big difference between *can* and >> *don't*. You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that >> can't. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts >>> - if you think they do, you must give examples. >>> >>> The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is >>> >>> a) concepts encase a more or less *infinite diversity of forms* (even >>> if only applying at first to a "species" of object) - *chair* for example >>> as I've demonstrated embraces a vast open-ended diversity of radically >>> different chair forms; higher order concepts like "furniture" embrace ... >>> well, it's hard to think even of the parameters, let alone the diversity of >>> forms, here. >>> >>> b) concepts are *polydomain*- not just multi- but open-endedly extensible >>> in their domains; "chair" for example, can also refer to a person, skin in >>> French, two humans forming a chair to carry s.o., a prize, etc. >>> >>> Basically concepts have a freeform realm or sphere of reference, and you >>> can't have a setform, preprogrammed approach to defining that realm. >>> >>> There's no reason however why you can't mechanically and computationally >>> begin to instantiate the kind of freeform approach I'm proposing. The most >>> important obstacle is the setform mindset of AGI-ers - epitomised by Dave >>> looking at squares, moving along set lines - setform objects in setform >>> motion - when it would be more appropriate to look at something like >>> snakes.- freeform objects in freeform motion. >>> >>> Concepts also - altho this is a huge subject - are *the* "language" of >>> the "general programs" (as distinct from specialist programs, wh. is all we >>> have right now) that must inform an AGI. Anyone proposing a grandscale AGI >>> project like Ben's (wh. I def. wouldn't recommend) must crack the problem of >>> conceptualisation more or less from the beginning. I'm not aware of anyone >>> who has any remotely viable proposals here, are you? >>> >>> *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:46 PM >>> *To:* agi <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> And programs as we know them, don't and can't handle *concepts* - >>>> despite the misnomers of "conceptual graphs/spaces" etc wh are not concepts >>>> at all. They can't for example handle "writing" or "shopping" because >>>> these >>>> can only be expressed as flexible outlines/schemas as per ideograms. >>>> >>> >>> I disagree with this, and so this is proper focus for our disagreement. >>> Although there are other aspects of the problem that we probably disagree >>> on, this is such a fundamental issue, that nothing can get past it. Either >>> programs can deal with flexible outlines/schema or they can't. If they >>> can't then AGI is probably impossible. If they can, then AGI is probably >>> possible. >>> >>> I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination is absolutely >>> necessary aspects of intelligence. >>> >>> Jim Bromer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *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> >>> *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> >>> >> >> > *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> > *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> > ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
