Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On 21 Aug 2008, at 18:32, Tom Caylor wrote: I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread. I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive (heuristic, circumstantial) evidence that reality is more than what can be computed. I agree. Recall that truth about just numbers is far bigger than what can be computed. (My belief in the intuition's base outside of computation is an example of where I'm coming from.) There are undecidable properties of fractals (iterative function systems, IFS), and it has been conjectured that all non-trivial properties of IFS's are undecidable. With the Mandelbrot set it is so geometrically complex (the pun here is appropriate since this set involves the complex numbers) that it is easy to believe that you could find your mother-in-law of even a super-model in there somewhere. Yes, although her peculiar state of consciousness is terribly distributed, and we have to distinguish the many pov ... But take another fractal like the Koch Snowflake, which also has undecidable properties. Yet is it entirely made of line segments which are at only three angles. I can't believe that reality could be restricted to this kind of complexity. I think so to. But not all undecidable set have to be universal. (Actually I am not sure of which undecidable properties of Koch Snowflake you allude to) Have you heard of fractal Turing machines, which incorporate real numbers? Perhaps this is something to be explored in the Everything discussion. You mean the work of Blum, Shub and Smale? Yes, it gives a proof of the undecidability of the Mandelbrot set with an enough good generalization of computability on the real (or on any ring actually). But its universality or creativity (in Emil Post sense, or its Blum, Shub Smale variant) remains to be proved. Bruno On Aug 13, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. Right. But full of subtle variations. It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey across a multiverse ... I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, You are not looking close enough, and also, the zoom movie remains a pure third person description. Consciousness is more related to a internal flux or to some stroboscopic inside views in the Mandelbrot Set (assuming the conjecture). It is a bit like looking to a picture of a galaxy. You will not see beautiful girls, unless you look close enough, and from the right perspective. or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. (remember also that not seeing something is not an argument of not-existence, like seeing something is not an argument for existence). If you want to see a white rabbit (*the* white rabbit), the best consists in looking at http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5XfQWKgf4Mfeature=related As for the mother-in-law, I am not sure about your motivations ... (Holiday jokes :) Bruno Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread. I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive (heuristic, circumstantial) evidence that reality is more than what can be computed. (My belief in the intuition's base outside of computation is an example of where I'm coming from.) There are undecidable properties of fractals (iterative function systems, IFS), and it has been conjectured that all non-trivial properties of IFS's are undecidable. With the Mandelbrot set it is so geometrically complex (the pun here is appropriate since this set involves the complex numbers) that it is easy to believe that you could find your mother-in-law of even a super-model in there somewhere. But take another fractal like the Koch Snowflake, which also has undecidable properties. Yet is it entirely made of line segments which are at only three angles. I can't believe that reality could be restricted to this kind of complexity. Have you heard of fractal Turing machines, which incorporate real numbers? Perhaps this is something to be explored in the Everything discussion. Tom On Aug 13, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. Right. But full of subtle variations. It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey across a multiverse ... I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, You are not looking close enough, and also, the zoom movie remains a pure third person description. Consciousness is more related to a internal flux or to some stroboscopic inside views in the Mandelbrot Set (assuming the conjecture). It is a bit like looking to a picture of a galaxy. You will not see beautiful girls, unless you look close enough, and from the right perspective. or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. (remember also that not seeing something is not an argument of not-existence, like seeing something is not an argument for existence). If you want to see a white rabbit (*the* white rabbit), the best consists in looking at http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5XfQWKgf4Mfeature=related As for the mother-in-law, I am not sure about your motivations ... (Holiday jokes :) Bruno Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Even if the Koch Snowflake is restricted to those 3 angles, you don't have to be restricted to the Snowflake itself -- by expanding, contracting or transforming the space of interest, you can get somewhere more interesting (anywhere you want, maybe?). For example, if you take the natural numbers, you can expand to the naturals, rationals, reals, etc., contract to the primes, transform to... err... something else. My feeling being that basically you can always abstract away through some kind of equivalence principle whenever the information available to you doesn't explicitly forbid it. I think it's time for someone to tear my ideas apart; after all, they're all really just based on consideration of some themes from Greg Egan's books I read about 8 years ago 2008/8/21 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread. I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive (heuristic, circumstantial) evidence that reality is more than what can be computed. (My belief in the intuition's base outside of computation is an example of where I'm coming from.) There are undecidable properties of fractals (iterative function systems, IFS), and it has been conjectured that all non-trivial properties of IFS's are undecidable. With the Mandelbrot set it is so geometrically complex (the pun here is appropriate since this set involves the complex numbers) that it is easy to believe that you could find your mother-in-law of even a super-model in there somewhere. But take another fractal like the Koch Snowflake, which also has undecidable properties. Yet is it entirely made of line segments which are at only three angles. I can't believe that reality could be restricted to this kind of complexity. Have you heard of fractal Turing machines, which incorporate real numbers? Perhaps this is something to be explored in the Everything discussion. Tom On Aug 13, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. Right. But full of subtle variations. It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey across a multiverse ... I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, You are not looking close enough, and also, the zoom movie remains a pure third person description. Consciousness is more related to a internal flux or to some stroboscopic inside views in the Mandelbrot Set (assuming the conjecture). It is a bit like looking to a picture of a galaxy. You will not see beautiful girls, unless you look close enough, and from the right perspective. or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. (remember also that not seeing something is not an argument of not-existence, like seeing something is not an argument for existence). If you want to see a white rabbit (*the* white rabbit), the best consists in looking at http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5XfQWKgf4Mfeature=related As for the mother-in-law, I am not sure about your motivations ... (Holiday jokes :) Bruno Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Hi Tom, Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. Right. But full of subtle variations. It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey across a multiverse ... I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, You are not looking close enough, and also, the zoom movie remains a pure third person description. Consciousness is more related to a internal flux or to some stroboscopic inside views in the Mandelbrot Set (assuming the conjecture). It is a bit like looking to a picture of a galaxy. You will not see beautiful girls, unless you look close enough, and from the right perspective. or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. (remember also that not seeing something is not an argument of not-existence, like seeing something is not an argument for existence). If you want to see a white rabbit (*the* white rabbit), the best consists in looking at http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5XfQWKgf4Mfeature=related As for the mother-in-law, I am not sure about your motivations ... (Holiday jokes :) Bruno Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. This seems related to Langton's edge of chaos idea. Sounds plausible. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno Fantastic. I used the Mandelbrot set as a example for my high performance computing students. Most of them wouldn't be up to doing the zooming thing though, but it would be a great example if they did. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
The repetition is the self-similarity, in essence the fractal nature of the beast. Yet I believe there are points on the Mandelbrot boundary that require an infinite calculation to determine if they're in or out (believe because I haven't studied the maths - presumably it has been proven one way or other). Bruno's conjecture IIUC is that within the Mandelbrot boundary can be found points corresponding to all possible calculations. Cheers On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 09:17:09PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote: Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. I have never been able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, or even a mother-in- law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture. Tom On Aug 12, 8:30 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. If you remember my conjecture that the Mandelbrot Set, (well, its complement in the complex plane), is Turing complete (that is equivalent in some sense to a universal dovetailing), then zooming in it gives a picture of the arithmetical multiverse or of the universal deployment. And I do find most of them wonderfully beautiful. Here is my favorite on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nmVUU_7IQ Is that not wonderful? Awesome ? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, please see after your quoted text. John M On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. Tom - JM: And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without function(ality)? * This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the functionality word how, how would I sense/acknowledge (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like beauty). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.) You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not think that this nonexisting concept is about anything. It IS not. Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is). Greetings John M Let me rephrase my statement for two different hypothetical cases: 1. If God does not exist, this does not imply that concepts of God do not exist, but that they are just incorrect (all of them in this case). So when I say, I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality, the words they think in this case would refer to a concept of God that they have, and what I meant in this case was that I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those concepts of God. 2. If God does exist, but someone's concept of God is different from the actual God, then similarly I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those wrong concepts of God. If God does exist, then God is more than a concept. So in that case, in fact believing in God would amount to something far more and far different from a mental assent to a concept of God. You can substitute for the word God, in all of the above, the words the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything and it will also apply. So what I was getting at is this. I think that a concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything) that is based fundamentally on functionality is indeed a very unappealing (should I dare say un-beautiful?) concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything). In fact, it seems to fly in the face of Occam's Razor. Functionality is a very complex thing. Occam's Razor is about the fact that beauty/elegance/simplicity seems to be at the core of the truth about things. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Just to be clear, I was not equating God and the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything. I was just noting that my statements work with either one. On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, please see after your quoted text. John M On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. Tom - JM: And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without function(ality)? * This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the functionality word how, how would I sense/acknowledge (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like beauty). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.) You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not think that this nonexisting concept is about anything. It IS not. Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is). Greetings John M Let me rephrase my statement for two different hypothetical cases: 1. If God does not exist, this does not imply that concepts of God do not exist, but that they are just incorrect (all of them in this case). So when I say, I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality, the words they think in this case would refer to a concept of God that they have, and what I meant in this case was that I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those concepts of God. 2. If God does exist, but someone's concept of God is different from the actual God, then similarly I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those wrong concepts of God. If God does exist, then God is more than a concept. So in that case, in fact believing in God would amount to something far more and far different from a mental assent to a concept of God. You can substitute for the word God, in all of the above, the words the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything and it will also apply. So what I was getting at is this. I think that a concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything) that is based fundamentally on functionality is indeed a very unappealing (should I dare say un-beautiful?) concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything). In fact, it seems to fly in the face of Occam's Razor. Functionality is a very complex thing. Occam's Razor is about the fact that beauty/elegance/simplicity seems to be at the core of the truth about things. Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf) I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in' and want to redirect my previous post. Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of BEAUTY - then think it over again with your similarly changed reply. BTW: I am not an atheist: an atheist requires for a denial (at least your 'concept' of) 'a' God what I do not find reasonable for/in my thinking. So I cannot deny it. I follow MY reason in MY common sense. - Occam: I know some on this list will disagree, but in my view (totality view unlimitedly interrelated and intereffective) is beyond the capability of our present mental capacity. So human thinking/logic cuts domains upon topic, function, into boundaries of exercised interest and observation, what I call 'reductionistic ways (cf: conventional scinences etc.) to make it simpler. I call such limited domains models (Robert Rosen). These are still too complex for easy handling, so Occam limited them even the further, cutting off the connotations not essential for the actual view. Accordingly (I consider) Occam's razor-cut as an increase in the reductionist view of the models. The new way of thinking I *seek* goes the opposite way. BTW the effects reaching an item in a model are NOT restricted to the model-boundaries which causes problems in the model-based sciences. JM On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to be clear, I was not equating God and the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything. I was just noting that my statements work with either one. On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, please see after your quoted text. John M On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. Tom - JM: And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without function(ality)? * This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the functionality word how, how would I sense/acknowledge (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like beauty). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.) You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not think that this nonexisting concept is about anything. It IS not. Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is). Greetings John M Let me rephrase my statement for two different hypothetical cases: 1. If God does not exist, this does not imply that concepts of God do not exist, but that they are just incorrect (all of them in this case). So when I say, I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality, the words they think in this case would refer to a concept of God that they have, and what I meant in this case was that I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those concepts of God. 2. If God does exist, but someone's concept of God is different from the actual God, then similarly I don't blame them for not giving a mental assent to those wrong concepts of God. If God does exist, then God is more than a concept. So in that case, in fact believing in God would amount to something far more and far different from a mental assent to a concept of God. You can substitute for the word God, in all of the above, the words the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything and it will also apply. So what I was getting at is this. I think that a concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything) that is based fundamentally on functionality is indeed a very unappealing (should I dare say un-beautiful?) concept of God (or the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything). In fact, it seems to fly in the face of Occam's Razor. Functionality is a very complex thing. Occam's Razor is about the fact that beauty/elegance/simplicity seems to be at the core of the truth about things. Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
See below. On Aug 11, 7:48 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf) I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in' and want to redirect my previous post. Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of BEAUTY - then think it over again with your similarly changed reply. BTW: I am not an atheist: an atheist requires for a denial (at least your 'concept' of) 'a' God what I do not find reasonable for/in my thinking. So I cannot deny it. I follow MY reason in MY common sense. - OK: And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) GOD without function(ality)? * This question is asking, in terms of functionality, using the functionality word how, how would I sense/acknowledge (functionally) a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing (like GOD). I agree that any answer to this would be nonsensical. (I think this is why quantum mechanics is nonsensical.) But this does not imply that beauty is not primary. (And by the way I am not saying that there is no relationship between beauty and functionality.) Yes. This is basically, IMO, saying the same thing as before. Note that I had put beauty in parantheses as one example of a hypothetically fundamental/primary thing, but GOD would be another example, perhaps Hilbert-space, numbers, Fisher information, plenitude, Tegmarks levels, are other examples. I should be clear that just because I acknowledge the nonsensicalness of describing the function of sensing a fundamental/primary thing directly, I still maintain that it can be sensed. Your following statement describes this situation: ...BTW the effects reaching an item in a model are NOT restricted to the model-boundaries which causes problems in the model-based sciences. i.e. to rephrase my previous sentence, just because we cannot describe something in terms of a model does not mean that the thing does not exist and that it does not have a detectable effect on us. Accordingly (I consider) Occam's razor-cut as an increase in the reductionist view of the models. The new way of thinking I *seek* goes the opposite way. Perhaps this is the same thing as the head vs. heart reversal. The traditional (reductionist) way of describing the process of truly understanding/recognizing truth goes like this: It starts with our head (being able to reduce something to a controllable manageable understandable subset or form), but then in order to truly know a truth (and know that we know), it has to travel the infinitely long 18 inches from our head to our heart. Since the controllable realm seems to reside solely within our head, then getting the truth through this 18 inches seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps this is where the various forms of religion come in, helping us to do the impossible. In contrast, I agree with you that in reality truth goes the opposite way, in my words from our heart to our head. God has set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and we merely RE--cogn-ize it. (I might add that the head first approach could be categorized as the Greek view, and the heart first approach could be categorized as the Hebrew view.) Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Tom, please see after your quoted text. John M On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. Tom - JM: And how, pray, would you sense (acknowledge?) beauty without function(ality)? * You have all the right to be a theist and formulate your 'theos' anyway you wish for yourself. IMO people 'not believeing in God' do not think that this nonexisting concept is about anything. It IS not. Just trying to read you within my logic. (Common sense that is). Greetings John M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if they think God is about functionality. Tom On Jul 29, 2:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two issues I wish to mention, here. Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality, culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and morality, all in a few brief sentences ;) Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who recently died. As regards the first issue: It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2) below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully: Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly express the fact that there is. Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any useful results at all. Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical contradiction. Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian result could be obtained. *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the next paragraph is my whole point, so it merits careful reading (the paragraph is marked with a * to show this is the crux of this post): *As regards the optimization of science, the leverage obtained from setting the priors (Occam’s razor – aesthetics – art) is far greater that that obtained from logical manipulations to update probabilities based on additional empirical data (math). Remember, the aesthetic principles used to set the priors (Occam’s razor) reduce a potentially infinite set of possible theories to a manageable (finite) number, whereas laborious mathematical probability updates based on incoming empirical data (standard Bayesian theory) is only guaranteed to converge on the correct theory after an infinite time, and even then the reason for the convergence is entirely inexplicable. The * paragraph suggests that aesthetics is the real basis of intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal values are objectively real. For those who do initially find these claims preposterous, to help overcome your initial disbelief, I point to a superb essay from well- respected computer hacker, Paul Graham, who explains why aesthetics plays a far greater role in science than many have realized: ‘Taste for
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Le 30-juil.-08, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou wrote : Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more to discovering truth about the world than mere algorithmic shuffling. Deduction and computation are different thing. Computability is closed for diagonalization, and this makes it possible to have an universal notion of computability (Church thesis) Deductibility is not closed for diagonalization, this makes deductibility notions never universal and always incomplete. It is a theorem of computer science that machine learning and discovering truth is beyond deductibility, but not necessarily beyond computability, and still less beyond computability viewed from the first person point of view. Also, assuming comp, the first person associated to the machine, cannot see itself as a machine at all (cf the unawareness of the reconstitution delay in the UDA and its consequences), making any self-aware machine directly connected to non computable entities having indeed the shape, in a first approximation, of many (2^aleph_0) interfering realities. I recall that with the mechanist assumption there are too much non computational entities a priori observable: the white rabbits. I agree with Mark about aesthetics. Platonist have Beauty in high considerations. But given that machine already cannot define truth, it would be weird that we can analyse beauty in term of procedure. On the contrary we have all reasons to believe that the mechanist hypothesis prevent any complete analysis of higher order notion like beauty definable. As I said often the comp or mechanist assumption is, after Godel, a vaccine against reductionism. Even the truth about only the numbers can no more be capture completely in term of numbers. Also, John says: Could Bruno imagine to define it [beauty] in numbers? (excuse me please the humor). I cannot. But I can explain why there exists a lot of things that a machine cannot explain in term of numbers. All this without postulating more than numbers (together with addition and multiplication) at the ontic level. Just remember that having only numbers at the ontic level forces the inside epistemological view to escape the numbers. If not you are collapsing first and third person view, like reducing a human person to her body. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On Jul 31, 1:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any given set of finite observations. Mere algorithmic shuffling to calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help much. Successful induction needs principles to set the priors are set correctly. Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more to discovering truth about the world than mere algorithmic shuffling. -- Stathis Papaioannou- Hide quoted text - Ah. Good. Glad to hear you agree. Incidentally, there was a feature in the last edition of 'New Scientist' in the 'Opinion' section, about what's wrong with 'excessive rationality': http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2666.html The idea is that good mathematics is beautiful. Good music and paintings often have a deep mathematical structure. No reason to throw away the math. Cheers, Günther True Gunther, but working out math ain't my job, and I don't need it to built an AI any way. AI's an engineering problem, not a science problem. I'm not terribly concerned about *what is* (science), I'm a lot more interested in *what could be* (creative hacking). There's far too many geeks on Internet messageboards and blogs babbling away about abstract theories of *what is* (science). This detracts from the business of actually working on *what could be* (creative hacking) The *what is* of pure math, has a practical counterpart - the *what could be* of ontology and computer programming ;) We don't need to understand the pure math to do the ontology and programming ;) Just good design principles. Cheers MJG --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Arsthetics? do we have a definition that satisfies *general* considerations? I doubt, because I cannot find one that applies to different ethnic, cultural (- even within one), at different times even if considered only in HUMAN beings. the 'scientific' terms are applying to (dis?)liking and beauty, which is in the eye of the (actual) beholder. Could Bruno imagine to define it in numbers? (excuse me please the humor). The closest I can think of is a lack of disturbing (imbalanced? stressful?) effects - a negative. Contemporaries often do not find contemporary art asthetic because it expresses in its (art-) language the troubles of the age-frame. Once another era enters, the 'unaesthetic' artwork is deemed aesthetic. (cf Beethoven's nusic, abstract painting, lots of lit etc.). as I explained earlier on this list and others, I am on 'common sense' basis John M On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/7/30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent, rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced by impostors. Their facility with deductive logic remains intact, and it is tempting to try to argue with them to show that their belief is false, but it doesn't work. The Bayes equation is: Pr(A|B) = Pr(B|A).Pr(A)/Pr(B) A = they are impostors B = they're acting weird The problem is that they overestimate Pr(A), the prior probability, and underestimate Pr(B). A very dull, but sane, person can see this, but they can't. Intelligence doesn't seem to help at all. -- Stathis Papaioannou- Um. I'm not totally sure what relevance this has to what I posted. Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any given set of finite observations. Mere algorithmic shuffling to calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help much. Successful induction needs principles to set the priors are set correctly. Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more to discovering truth about the world than mere algorithmic shuffling. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
On Jul 30, 1:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent, rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced by impostors. Their facility with deductive logic remains intact, and it is tempting to try to argue with them to show that their belief is false, but it doesn't work. The Bayes equation is: Pr(A|B) = Pr(B|A).Pr(A)/Pr(B) A = they are impostors B = they're acting weird The problem is that they overestimate Pr(A), the prior probability, and underestimate Pr(B). A very dull, but sane, person can see this, but they can't. Intelligence doesn't seem to help at all. -- Stathis Papaioannou- Um. I'm not totally sure what relevance this has to what I posted. Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any given set of finite observations. Mere algorithmic shuffling to calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help much. Successful induction needs principles to set the priors are set correctly. Which is largely based on aesthetic judgements. Read the Graham essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html You'll get it some day - unfortunately, I suspect, the mererely Bayesian probablity shuffling you're using to update your beliefs may take an inifinite time to converge to my beliefs ;) Cheers --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
But what is aesthetics the study of? Of beauty? That's it isn't it? But how can something as plastic as beauty have any kind of terminal value that you and I can both share? Do aesthetic terminal values decide where something fits into aesthetic reality or something like that? By the way, thanks for showing that artistic intelligence may actually represent a form of scientific understanding, a thought dear to my heart. Kim Jones -- Marc, I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction). Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic pervade his work! Cheers, Günther Yes, good Kim and Gunther- I’m now adopting the radical belief that intelligence has a lot more to do with art, than math ;) Good initial link on aesthetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics So throw away all those math books , forget about Bayes, and start studying the arts: painting, music and so on and so forth. We’ll finally solve the AI stuff…with art. On Jul 30, 2:34 am, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc, I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction). Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic pervade his work! Cheers, Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two issues I wish to mention, here. Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality, culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and morality, all in a few brief sentences ;) Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who recently died. As regards the first issue: It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2) below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully: Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly express the fact that there is. Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any useful results at all. Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical contradiction. Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian result could be obtained. *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the next paragraph is my whole
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
2008/7/30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent, rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced by impostors. Their facility with deductive logic remains intact, and it is tempting to try to argue with them to show that their belief is false, but it doesn't work. The Bayes equation is: Pr(A|B) = Pr(B|A).Pr(A)/Pr(B) A = they are impostors B = they're acting weird The problem is that they overestimate Pr(A), the prior probability, and underestimate Pr(B). A very dull, but sane, person can see this, but they can't. Intelligence doesn't seem to help at all. -- Stathis Papaioannou- Um. I'm not totally sure what relevance this has to what I posted. Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any given set of finite observations. Mere algorithmic shuffling to calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help much. Successful induction needs principles to set the priors are set correctly. Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more to discovering truth about the world than mere algorithmic shuffling. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Marc, Yes, good Kim and Gunther- I’m now adopting the radical belief that intelligence has a lot more to do with art, than math ;) snip So throw away all those math books , forget about Bayes, and start studying the arts: painting, music and so on and so forth. The idea is that good mathematics is beautiful. Good music and paintings often have a deep mathematical structure. No reason to throw away the math. Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
But what is aesthetics the study of? Of beauty? That's it isn't it? But how can something as plastic as beauty have any kind of terminal value that you and I can both share? Do aesthetic terminal values decide where something fits into aesthetic reality or something like that? By the way, thanks for showing that artistic intelligence may actually represent a form of scientific understanding, a thought dear to my heart. Kim Jones On 29/07/2008, at 7:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: aesthetics is the real basis of intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal values are objectively real. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
2008/7/29 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn't true that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly express the fact that there is. You'll have to explain what you mean by teleogy/purpose. If you claim that rocks roll downhill because it is their purpose to do so, that's not using the term in a conventional way. Here is the point that most haven't quite grasped - Occam's razor is *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of 'simplicity' is *a set of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical contradiction. Not necessarily. It may be that some mindless, valueless objective quality coincidentally produces aesthetic feelings. For example, we may find the human form beautiful, and some human forms more beautiful than others. But that doesn't mean that there is some absolute, objective sense in which humans are beautiful; it's just that our minds have evolved to think this way. Similarly, if we find that some other aspect of physical reality corresponds with what we recognise as an aesthetic principle, this is just a contingent fact about the way our minds work. There are plenty of things in nature which are complicated and ugly, and they don't try to reform themselves on our account. Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). Why? Occam's razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam's razor is a set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian result could be obtained. *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the next paragraph is my whole point, so it merits careful reading (the paragraph is marked with a * to show this is the crux of this post): *As regards the optimization of science, the leverage obtained from setting the priors (Occam's razor – aesthetics – art) is far greater that that obtained from logical manipulations to update probabilities based on additional empirical data (math). Remember, the aesthetic principles used to set the priors (Occam's razor) reduce a potentially infinite set of possible theories to a manageable (finite) number, whereas laborious mathematical probability updates based on incoming empirical data (standard Bayesian theory) is only guaranteed to converge on the correct theory after an infinite time, and even then the reason for the convergence is entirely inexplicable. The * paragraph suggests that aesthetics is the real basis of intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal values are objectively real. I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent, rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced by impostors. Their facility with deductive logic remains intact, and it is tempting to try to argue with them to show that their belief is false, but it doesn't work. The Bayes equation is: Pr(A|B) = Pr(B|A).Pr(A)/Pr(B) A = they are impostors B = they're acting weird The problem is that they overestimate Pr(A), the prior probability, and underestimate Pr(B). A very dull, but sane, person can see this, but they can't. Intelligence doesn't seem to help at all. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Marc, I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction). Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic pervade his work! Cheers, Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two issues I wish to mention, here. Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality, culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and morality, all in a few brief sentences ;) Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who recently died. As regards the first issue: It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2) below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully: Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly express the fact that there is. Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any useful results at all. Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical contradiction. Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian result could be obtained. *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the next paragraph is my whole point, so it merits careful reading (the paragraph is marked with a * to show this is the crux of this post): *As regards the optimization of science, the leverage obtained from setting the priors (Occam’s razor – aesthetics – art) is far greater that that obtained from logical manipulations to update probabilities based on additional empirical data (math). Remember, the aesthetic principles used to set the priors (Occam’s razor) reduce a potentially infinite set of possible theories to a manageable (finite) number, whereas laborious mathematical probability updates based on incoming empirical data (standard Bayesian theory) is only guaranteed to converge on the correct theory after an infinite time, and even then the reason for the convergence is entirely inexplicable. The * paragraph suggests that aesthetics is the real basis of intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal values are objectively real. For those who do initially find these claims preposterous, to help overcome your initial disbelief, I point to a superb essay from well- respected computer hacker, Paul Graham, who explains why aesthetics plays a far greater role in science than many have
Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!
Marc, your (long) post gave me a feeling of having returned into my childhood. Back to the reductionist figments of the model view 'physical world' and 'conventional sciences'. I should interjet a lot into your long text, in view of a 'totality-view' (not yet adaquately formulated) - I choose to pick some details (as Stathis did commendably) for some brief reflection. Kim picked 1 item: aesthetics. * Entropy is not a 'state', it is a math expression within thermodynamics, a figment of a developmental stage in primitive, inadequate explanations of inadequate observations over the millennia. Big Bang cosmology is an erroneous fairytale based on an idea of Hubble (not scrutinized for alternates) and a linear retrogradation in a nonlinear development from an arbitrary state - incomparable with our today's observable physical world system - applying the laws and concepts of the latter. Hence all the marvels it contains wishfully. Evolution of the universe handles the implied topic of the (physicists') 20th c. figment in the spirit of 18th c. Darwinism. To escape from that I constructed a 'narrative' - (no claims for any scientific acceptabilitiy) in which the timeless 'universe' - flash undergoes, as looked from the inside organized into space and time, a 'history' from occurrence to re-dissipation, called evolution. That may be (sort of) teleological, since it has a final point to attain: the re-distribution into the unspecified plenitude, invented for the narrative only for 'living with our ignorance about the *origins*'. * The 'totality-view' represents an unlimited complexity beyond our present capabilities to comprehend, or inspect in toto. This is why we think in cut (limited) topical/functional/ideational models (including the sciences). Occam's razor is a '2nd step' reduction (even simpler modeling) in the already formed models - omitting the rest of the connections. Making it EVEN simpler to handle, even further away of the 'total complexity'. * objective terminal values? all we have is subjective, even virtual, explained by mentality to the level of our capabilities. Values are culture oriented and defined, especially morality, a social compromise for survival within the appropriate culture. Eating the young flesh of the sacrificed girl was very moral for the high priests. Taking interest on loans is immoral for Islam. - Physical law depends on the extent of the complexity we use for our observation restricted to the 'level' of measuring instruments and to the timely '(era) math' applied for the explanation within the given level of the then epistemic cognitive inventory. (Give or take 1000 years?). * Intelligence IMO is the capability of 'reading between the words' (as in inter lego) with ELASTICITY of the thinking (not plasticity) allowing to accept an idea, pondering about it, altering it, or rejecting it. (My main objection vs. the computer-based Ai as such, working in fixed words). * Marc, I wrote these remarks in view of a 'new' way of thinking, enjoying your historically sound and interesting post. John Mikes -- On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/7/29 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn't true that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly express the fact that there is. You'll have to explain what you mean by teleogy/purpose. If you claim that rocks roll downhill because it is their purpose to do so, that's not using the term in a conventional way. Here is the point that most haven't quite grasped - Occam's razor is *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of 'simplicity' is *a set of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical contradiction. Not necessarily. It may be that some mindless, valueless objective quality coincidentally produces aesthetic feelings. For example, we may find the human form
