On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:52:04 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:03:27 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Craig,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From the Quora http://www.quora.com/Board-**Gam**
>>>>> es/What-are-some-fun-games-**to-**play-on-an-8x8-**Checkerboard-**
>>>>> besides-chess-**checkers<http://www.quora.com/Board-Games/What-are-some-fun-games-to-play-on-an-8x8-Checkerboard-besides-chess-checkers>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is interesting because I think it shows the weakness of the
>>>>> one-dimensional view of intelligence as computation. Whether a program can
>>>>> be designed to win or not is beside the point,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not really fair, is it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>
>> How else can I counter your argument against intelligence as computation
>> if I am not allowed to use computation? My example would not prove that
>> it's what the brain does, but it would prove that it can be. You are
>> arguing that it cannot be.
>>
>
> I'm arguing that a screw is not the same thing as a nail because when you
> hammer a screw it doesn't go in as easily as a nail and when you use a
> screwdriver on a nail it doesn't go in at all.
>

Ok.


> Sometimes the hammer is a better tool and sometimes the driver is. As
> humans, we have a great hammer and a decent screwdriver. A computer can't
> hammer anything, but it has a power screwdriver with a potentially infinite
> set of tips.
>

Ok, but if I understand your ideas, you're claiming that the hammer is also
the fundamental stuff that reality is made of. Sorry if I'm misrepresenting
what you're saying. If I'm not, I don't understand why computers can't have
the hammer.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as it is the difference between this game and chess which hints at the
>>>>> differences between bottom-up mechanism and top-down intentionality
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see what you're saying but I disagree. It just highlights the weak
>>>> points of tree-search approaches like min-max. What I gather from what
>>>> happens when one plays Arimaa (or Go): due to combinatorial explosion,
>>>> players (even human) play quite far away from the perfect game(s). The way
>>>> we deal with combinatorial explosion is by mapping the game into something
>>>> more abstract.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that any such mapping is going on? It seems like begging
>>> the question.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know. I have a strong intuition in it's favor for a few reasons,
>> scientific and otherwise.
>>
>
> Have you tried thinking about it another way? Where does 'mapping' come
> from? Can you begin mapping without already having a map?
>

Yes, I think I begin with a map based on previous experiences and then
improve it as I discover it's weaknesses. I think the original map came
from brute-force experimentation while my brain was developing in my early
months of live. But this is just wild guessing, of course.


>
>
>> The non-scientific one is introspection. I try to observe my own thought
>> process and I think I use such mappings.
>>
>
> Maybe you do. Maybe a lot of people do. I don't think that I do though. I
> think that a game can be played directly without abstracting it into
> another game.
>

Ok, I believe you but I don't have the same experience. My wife does. She
works in a creative field and she is very intuitive, with the typical
aversion for math. She can beat me at chess quite easily, without appearing
to resort to conscious strategic thinking. She describes it as doing what
"feels right".


>
> The scientific reason is that this type of approach has been
>> used successfully to tackle AI problems that could not be solved with
>> classical search algorithms.
>>
>
> I don't doubt that this game is likely to be solved eventually, maybe even
> soon, but the fact remains that it exposes some fundamentally different
> aesthetics between computation and intelligence. This is impressive to me
> because any game is already hugely biased in favor of computation. A game
> is ideal to be reduced to a set of logical rules, it's turn play is already
> a recursive enumeration. A game is already a computer program. Even so, we
> can see that it is possible to use a game to bypass computational values -
> of generic, unconscious repetition, and hint at something completely
> different and opposite.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Put another way, if there were top-down non-computational effort going
>>> into the game play, why would it look any different than what we see?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Our brain seems to be quite good at generating such mappings. We do it
>>>> with chess too, I'm sure. Notice that, when two humans play Arimaa, both
>>>> can count on each other's inabilities to play close to the perfect game. As
>>>> with games with incomplete information, like Poker, part of it is modelling
>>>> the opponent. Perhaps not surprisingly, artificial neural networks are
>>>> quite good at producing useful mappings of this sort, and on predicting
>>>> behaviours with incomplete information. Great progress has been achieved
>>>> lately with deep learning. All this fits bottom-up mechanism and
>>>> intelligence as computation. It doesn't prove anything because I can't
>>>> attach the code for an excellent Arimaa player but, on the other hand, if I
>>>> did I'm sure you'd come up with something else. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that playing Arimaa is not particularly taxing on the human
>>> player. There is no suggestion of any complex algorithms and mappings,
>>> rather it seems to me, there is simplicity.
>>>
>>
>> The mappings don't have to be complex at all (in terms of leading to
>> heavy computations). That's precisely their point.
>>
>
> Then shouldn't a powerful computer be able to quickly deduce the winning
> Arimaa mappings?
>

You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical
computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we don't
have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, is why
on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. Either it's too
complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that computation is not the
whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm not sure, of course.
Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, not consciousness,
which I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> The human finds no fundamental difference between the difficulty between
>>> Arimaa and Chess, yet there is a clear difference for the computer.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the classical chess algorithms are clearly not how we do it. I agree
>> with you there.
>>
>>
>>> Again, if this does not indicate that there the model of intelligence as
>>> purely an assembly of logical parts, what actually would? In what way is
>>> the Strong AI position falsifiable?
>>>
>>
>> I agree, I don't think it's falsifiable and thus not a scientific
>> hypothesis in the Popperian sense. I see it more as an ambitious goal that
>> nobody even knows if it's achievable. You might be right, even if we manage
>> to create an AI that is undistinguishable from human intelligence. I prefer
>> to believe in Strong AI because I'm interested in it's consequences and in
>> the intellectual challenge of achieving it. That's all, to be honest.
>>
>> On the other hand, your hypothesis is also not falsifiable.
>>
>
> Sure, but mine doesn't pretend to be as it calls the whole notion of
> falsifiability as a criteria for addressing awareness into question. Strong
> AI though is a bet that awareness can be constructed through logic, and
> logic, especially digital logic, is all about the exclusive supremacy of
> true/false positions. I don't think that Strong AI is a bad goal if it
> drives curiosity and development - my beef with AI is completely
> incidental, I generally am happy with computer science and consider it one
> of the few healthy parts of civilization that remains.
>

I think there's a very simple reason for that. Nobody can prevent me from
experimenting with my computer right now. I can try a new algorithm without
any paper work, permission from some regulatory body or even money. It's
free as in beer and free as in speech. People can replicate my results with
similar ease. So it's the only pure science left. It's also why I love
computers so much.


> I only argue against Strong AI because when I argue for this new picture
> of mind-matter-information unification, the argument that fights back is
> rooted in these assumptions about information states being concretely
> real...information states which we have knowingly contrived for the purpose
> of developing technology. We invented the Gigabyte and now we worship it as
> a mechanical anti-God. It's more of a public service than anything else to
> try to point out why that may actually prevent us or side track us from
> understanding consciousness. Strong AI may not really want to understand
> consciousness, and that's fine, but for those who do want to understand the
> physical phenomenon of awareness, they are being led down a dead end path
> by some very smart, very enthusiastic minds.
>

I completely agree with you when it comes to consciousness.

Best,
Telmo.


>
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lot of progress has been made in Poker, both in mapping the game to
>>>> something more abstract and modelling opponents:
>>>> http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Telmo.
>>>>
>>>> PS: The expression "brute force" annoys me a bit. It implies that
>>>> traditional chess algorithms blindly search the entire space. That's just
>>>> not true, they do clever tree-pruning and use heuristics. Still, they are
>>>> indeed defeated by combinatorial explosion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was a generalization, but I understood what they meant. The important
>>> thing is that the approach of computation is fundamentally passive and
>>> eliminative. Games which do not hinge on human intolerance for tedious
>>> recursive processes are going to be easier for computers because machines
>>> have no capacity for intolerance. The more tedious the better. Games which
>>> de-emphasize this as a criteria for success are less vulnerable to any
>>> recursive elimination. The more a game can reward spontaneous creativity,
>>> versatility, style, grace, broadminded eclectic interpretations, the more a
>>> computer will fail to duplicate a person's success.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> In Arimaa, the rules invite personal preference as a spontaneous
>>>>> initiative from the start - thus it does not make the reductionist
>>>>> assumption of intelligence as a statistical extraction or 'best choice'.
>>>>> Game play here begins intuitively and strategy is more proprietary-private
>>>>> than generic-public. In addition the interaction of the pieces and
>>>>> inclusion of the four trap squares suggests a game geography which is
>>>>> rooted more in space-time sensibilities than in pure arithmetic like 
>>>>> chess.
>>>>> I'm not sure which aspects are the most relevant in the difference between
>>>>> how a computer performs, but it seems likely to me that the difference is
>>>>> specifically *not* related to computing "power". To wit:
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are tens of thousands of possibilities in each turn in Arimaa.
>>>>> The 'brute force approach' to programming Arimaa fails miserably. Any 
>>>>> human
>>>>> who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down."
>>>>>
>>>>> This to me suggests that Arimaa does a good job of sniffing out the
>>>>> general area where top-down consciousness differs fundamentally from 
>>>>> bottom
>>>>> up simulated intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------****------------------------------****
>>>>> ------------------------------****------------------------------****
>>>>> --------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *Arimaa, the strategy game that confounds computers! *
>>>>> It can be played, not only on an 8x8 chess board, but with the same
>>>>> chess pieces as well!
>>>>> The pieces are :
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. 8 Rabbits (Pawns)
>>>>>    2. 1 Elephant (King)
>>>>>    3. 1 Camel (Queen)
>>>>>    4. 2 Horses (Rooks)
>>>>>    5. 2 Dogs (Bishops)
>>>>>    6. 2 Cats (Knights)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter in what way you want the 2 horses/dogs/cats to be
>>>>> designated by the 2 bishops/knights/rooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> *What sets apart Arimaa from Chess?*
>>>>>
>>>>>    - There is no draw in Arimaa. Good news for elimination
>>>>>    tournaments.
>>>>>    - In Arimaa, a player has 64,864,400 choices for the first turn.
>>>>>    Thus unlike chess, memorizing openings is not gonna help you.
>>>>>    - There are tens of thousands of possibilities in each turn in
>>>>>    Arimaa. The 'brute force approach' to programming Arimaa fails 
>>>>> miserably.
>>>>>    Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands 
>>>>> down.
>>>>>    - It places less emphasis on tactics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe Arimaa is *way* better than chess in terms of abstract
>>>>> strategical thinking. It needs a higher level of intuition and
>>>>> understanding, discourages memorization and is simple to learn and play. 
>>>>> It
>>>>> took me some time to play good chess, but it took me a small fraction of
>>>>> that time to learn and play good Arimaa.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Arimaa community is offering $10,000 for anyone who can come up
>>>>> with a program able to beat a top-level human Arimaa player, by 2020 : The
>>>>> Arimaa Challenge <http://arimaa.com/arimaa/challenge/>
>>>>> This will help us to attain the next pinnacle in Artificial
>>>>> Intelligence Programming.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rules :*
>>>>> In the starting, both players arrange the pieces in whatever way they
>>>>> fashion in their first two rows, something like this :
>>>>>
>>>>> The pieces can move only one square horizontally or vertically. In
>>>>> case of rabbits, you can only move upwards or sideways. You have four 
>>>>> moves
>>>>> to play in each turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order of their power, the *pieces can either **'push'** or **'pull'
>>>>> ** other pieces of the opponent*. In addition to this, if a less
>>>>> powerful piece of yours is adjacent to a more powerful piece of the
>>>>> opponent's, then your piece will be *frozen, **unless your piece is
>>>>> adjacent to another one of your pieces.*
>>>>>
>>>>> The order of power is as follows :
>>>>> *Elephant > Camel > Horse > Dog > Cat > Rabbit*
>>>>> That is, your camel will be able to push or pull the opponent's
>>>>> horse/dog/cat/rabbit. You can freeze the horse/dog/cat/rabbit if it 
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> have any friendly piece adjacent to it.
>>>>> *Elephants are all-powerful* : they cannot be pushed, pulled or
>>>>> frozen.
>>>>>
>>>>> See those dark squares in the diagram above? They are *'Trap Squares'*.
>>>>> If any of your piece lands in here and if there is no adjacent friendly
>>>>> piece to it, your piece will be 'captured'.
>>>>>
>>>>> *So, How do you win? *
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Your goal is to get one of your rabbits to the last row(or home
>>>>>    rank). Whoever manages to do this first, wins.
>>>>>    - If you manage to capture all your opponent's rabbits, you win.
>>>>>    - If your opponent has no legal move, you win.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since one of the above situations is bound to occur, there is *no* *
>>>>> draw* in Arimaa. This is unlike chess where there is an unusually
>>>>> high probability of a draw.
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.**com.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group**
>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>> .
>>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to