Dave: "The goal of the formula is to scan any unknown object "
How does the program define and therefore recognize "object" ?
(And why then are you dealing with just "squares" if it can deal with this
apparently vast and unlimited range of "objects"? )
If you go into detail, you'll find no program can deal with or define "object".
Jeez, none can recognize a "chair" - but now apparently they can recognize
"objects".
What exactly does the program do? Your description is confusing. What forms
are input and output? Specific examples. If I put in a drawing of overlaid
circles or a cartoon face, or a Jackson Pollock, or a photo of any scene, this
program will give me 3-d versions?
Here's a bet - you're giving me yet more hype.
From: David Jones
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:32 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> 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
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:00 PM
To: agi
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 <davidher...@gmail.com> 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 <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:46 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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 | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
