subject:"Re\: Turing test passed\? Another sucker born every minute"



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:


  On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
  
  A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient 
 patience, 

 Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
 levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
 upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
 we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
 about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
 daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
 accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
 rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
 judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
 themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
 quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a 
 caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
 Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
 of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
 rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
 surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
 the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
 saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
 fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! 

 Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
 exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
 worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
 ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
 previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
 licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
 because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
 biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
 IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
 humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
 about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
 understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
 this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
 instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 

 Kim 


Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. 
has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of 
enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 

I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
intelligence. 

Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain 
kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony 
Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony 
Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in 
terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. 

With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential 
of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields 
like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some 
prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for 
such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 
'deriving' that which we need. 

A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter 
are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. This chap won 
the Field's Medal (equivalent of Nobel Prize in Maths), yet positively 
supports the memorizing activities of mathematics students in Cambridge. 
Worth noting, that one does not have to be a complete snob, to recognize a 
mathematics undergraduate course in Cambridge University is likely to be 
attracting some of the most promising young mathematicians in the world. 
Yet a large number of them resort to memorization. 

A lot more people do the same, but don't mention it because they fear it 
gets them judged 'rote' learners. But this is all completely bonkers. In 
reality very FEW people have all round

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:


  On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
  
  A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have 
 sufficient patience, 

 Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
 levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
 upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
 we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
 about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
 daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
 accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
 rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
 judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
 themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
 quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a 
 caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
 Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
 of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
 rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
 surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
 the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
 saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
 fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! 

 Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
 exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
 worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
 ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
 previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
 licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
 because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
 biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
 IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
 humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
 about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
 understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
 this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
 instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 

 Kim 


 Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of 
 I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines 
 of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
 in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
 totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
 and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
 more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
 intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
 to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 

 I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
 represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
 intelligence. 


p.s. given this is a 'controversial' subject, typically people are to be 
found at one or other of two extremes with few in the middle. So thought 
I'd add a point that addresses and answers the beliefs/concerns of people 
at both ends of the spectrum in regard of this matter. 

Yes! It is possible to answer both extremes at the same time, and this is 
actually typical of controversial matters. Reason is not magical but simply 
because one extreme tends to gravitate to the other for debating partner, 
or whatever. 

- So on one side it's about I.Q. isn't legitimate, a typical argument being 
that I.Q. tests measure, being good at I.Q. tests and so on. 

- On the other side it's about I.Q. is the Universe, a typical argument 
being that talk of 'other' intelligences is a fob to political correctness 
(the only exceptions allowed are normally areas that I.Q. already deals 
with anyway). 

In reality - IMHO - both are RIGHT but in the WRONG contexts. I.Q. is NOT 
the Universe, this is literally impossible. But I.Q. is NOT just about 
being good at tests...this is silly and misinformed or misinforming. But 
what is true, is what you get if you keep the points, but reverse the 
contexts between the two. 

- I.Q. is a historical suite of measures and research lines, that 
IMPLICITLY sought to converge on something that would be maximally 
HERITABLE and LIFE CONSTANT. Hence, they got exactly what they were looking 
for. That

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
 there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
 humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 
 bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered 
 entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply 
 because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and 
 intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack 
 on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet 
 undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

this bit  is actually your core reasoning on my reading: *Evolution can see 
intelligence but it can't directly see consciousness any better than we 
can* 

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:08:56 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to 
 think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which 
 below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you 
 say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can 
 remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by 
 ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard 
 linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or 
 consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more 
 primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to 
 be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to 
 be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply 
 because there is an almost complete overlap of

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:


  On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
  
  A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have 
 sufficient patience, 

 Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
 levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
 upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
 we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
 about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
 daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
 accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
 rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
 judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
 themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
 quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a 
 caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
 Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
 of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
 rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
 surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
 the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
 saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
 fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! 

 Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
 exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
 worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
 ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
 previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
 licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
 because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
 biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
 IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
 humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
 about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
 understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
 this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
 instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 

 Kim 


 Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of 
 I.Q. has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines 
 of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
 in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
 totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
 and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
 more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
 intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
 to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 

 I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
 represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
 intelligence. 

 Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain 
 kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony 
 Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony 
 Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in 
 terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. 

 With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential 
 of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields 
 like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some 
 prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for 
 such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 
 'deriving' that which we need. 

 A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter 
 are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. 


worth noting this is a tiny reference to a subject possibly large enough to 
write a book about (beyond me to do that). What I'm not suggesting is that 
one of the fundamental 'natures' of mathematics is not true. That would be 
its internal structure involving re-use and re-emergence of essentially the 
same simple objects (e.g. Bruno's insights about arithmetic). Of course, 
this is true, and so following on from this, it is also certainly true 
that mathematicians can and do 'derive' rather than 'memorize' whatever

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-21 Thread Kim Jones

Al Hibbs - I am still receiving every one of your posts TWICE.  Please stop 
placing my personal email address in the cc field of each of your posts. My 
inbox is full to bursting with you. You are, in addition, a very prolific and a 
very verbose writer. This amounts to a kind of torture, albeit unintentional on 
your part, I gather.

Kim

Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain

 

 On 22 Jun 2014, at 1:05 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
 
  On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
  
  A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient 
  patience, 
 
 Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
 levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
 upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
 we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
 about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
 daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
 accelerant at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
 rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
 judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
 themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
 quick kill, and to be cock of the rock. This is nothing more than a 
 caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
 Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
 of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
 rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
 surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
 the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
 saying See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
 fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is! 
 
 Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
 exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
 worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
 ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
 previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
 licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
 because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
 biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
 IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
 humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
 about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
 understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
 this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
 instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 
 
 Kim
 
 Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of I.Q. 
 has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of 
 enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 'toward 
 intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or in 
 support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be totally 
 ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science and robust 
 knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much more akin to 
 shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of intelligence. 
 That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need to be picked up 
 by other, nascent, fields.
 
 I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it represents 
 a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of intelligence.
 
 Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain 
 kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony 
 Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony 
 Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in 
 terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant.
 
 With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential 
 of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields 
 like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some 
 prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for 
 such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 
 'deriving' that which we need.
 
 A lot of

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just 
noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
unticking. 

I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
understood - by everyone.

That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have 
 just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
 unticking. 

 I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
 half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
 completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
 shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
 time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
 understood - by everyone.

 That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
 that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  


yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment I receive the List 
via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are 
receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s 
almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the 
sender’. 

sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:04:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have 
 just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
 unticking. 

 I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
 half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
 completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
 shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
 time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
 understood - by everyone.

 That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
 that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  


 yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment I receive the List 
 via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are 
 receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s 
 almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the 
 sender’. 

 sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. 



and okI did understand I'd been inexcusably unpleasant to you in 
that followup response over on the 'bruno' thread...and had been planning 
to do the decent thing and leave the list out of respect that it's 
much less my 'home' than anyone elses. Since I couldn't bring myself to 
actually say sorry about that, and still can't. But obviously 
comparing your approach to reconciliation with begging for my 
life was totally unreasonable and outrageous. But.then there were 
the less unreasonable elements of what I said.and no 'sorry' from you 
or any of the others involved. 

So, I will leave the list Kim, because as things are I've learned a lot. 
And all is good. And definitely no hard feelings my side. In all honesty I 
thought that you'd involved yourself in a discussion about intelligence 
which I was probably a seed contributor (possibly, can't recall), I thought 
maybe by replying to you directly it would be an olive branch...that maybe 
you'd invited there to be. No matter. Goodbye :O) No need for phoney 'don't 
go!' action, was already on my way to the door anyway. Only hanging for the 
John Clark thing and maybe to make it right with you anyway. 

So I'm gone. Sorry, that was the broom cupboard. Sorry.. 
bathroom...oh..hi PGCand Bruno...jeez lock the door dudes. Bye bye :O)

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-20 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:20:25AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:
 
   OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
  better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.
 
 
   Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
  definitely.
 
 
 Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20
 years and Mathematica can beat its programers too.
 

Rubbish - to my knowledge, not one new DE solution has been found by
Mathematica.

  There are new solutions being discovered all the time,
 
 
 And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time.

Of course - it's database is upgraded by the solutions being found by
mathematicians. 

 
  and its by humans,
 
 
 But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught
 by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for
 discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers
 had teachers too and so
 

What? Einstein's teachers didn't discover relativity, Einstein did. A
mathematician discovering a new DE solution discovered it, not er
doctoral supervisor.

If Mathematica discovered new DE solutions, then mathematica would be
creative. But to my knowledge, Mathematica has never done that. A new
DE solution is more likely to come from an evolutionary algorithm,
such as John Koza's Genetic Programming, but all his program has come
up with is some new antenna and circuits.

I suspect there's more money in patentable circuits than in
unpatentable solutions to DEs, which may have something to do with that.


  Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator) is
  basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such as
  [blah blah]
 
 
 Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be broken
 down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and
 impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves
 be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and
 awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and
 dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then
 conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist?
 
  Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task.
 
 
 Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed
 by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself. Therefore it's
 true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task
 but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's
 creative to you might not be for me.
 

Creativity is essentially the creation of meaningful information. Now
there is a lot of ambiguity and fuzziness about that, but difficulty
is not part of that. When Jackson Pollock sloshed some paint around on
canvas, he was being wonderfully creative. But it didn't look like
much effort was actually required.

 
   I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not
  creative.
 
 
 You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy.
 But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference
 between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the
 difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat
 you'd say he was wonderfully creative.
 

No I wouldn't. I might call him many things, but not creative.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-20 Thread Kim Jones




 On 20 Jun 2014, at 4:40 pm, John Clark wrote:

 Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed
 by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself.

So what. If the outcome of the task is the creation of new value then it's been 
a creative act to bring about that value. You might as well attribute the value 
to the task because performing it is what it took to bring about that value.


 Therefore it's
 true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task
 but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's
 creative to you might not be for me.

Can you recognise new value? If yes, then you have absolutely no way of knowing 
how that value could have existed except from the evidence provided by the 
details of the task that somebody performed to create that value that you can 
now recognise. It is always easy to say in hindsight that there was a logical 
route from A to E (which doesn't sound very creative) except the track to 
arrive at E was totally invisible to you until it was discovered by someone 
using some technique that you were clearly unaware of. Creativity is not a 
matter of your personal taste. Creativity is the only way certain things ever 
get discovered. Everything, once it exists, seems to have some reasonably 
logical path leading to it but you fail to recognise that the human mind works 
around assymetric patterns of recognition; in other words our recognition 
ability is irreversable and cannot see certain things until something 
apparently quite random or inexplicable in foresight brings them about. Whether 
you think that's creative or not is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.

Kim

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-20 Thread Kim Jones


 On 20 Jun 2014, at 3:06 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I would always call coming up with something that was difficult (or 
 complex) and novel and interesting creative. 

That's not creative - that's innovative. Let's get this sorted out now. 
Innovation is not the same thing as creativity although there is definitely a 
link between the two. You might think that something is difficult, complex, 
novel and interesting but it may simply be that you've never heard of it 
before. Creativity is where nobody has ever heard of it before. Creativity is 
new value. Innovation is doing something new and possibly challenging and novel 
for you, but that doesn't have to be new for others. Companies do this all the 
time. It's called Me Too-ism - Apple creates a new concept and delivers it 
via a new gadget called an iPad which people come to value. Samsung then 
repeats the concept and develops it in their own possibly quite innovative 
manner but they did not create the concept, rather, they instantly see the 
value and go Fuck! Why didn't we think of that? Let's steal it and do it 
better than them. 

There is nothing creative about Me Too-ism. Just visit a supermarket and 
examine the differences between the 50 brands of soap powder, the 120 brands of 
margerine or breakfast cereal etc. Such concept iteration or recursion may in 
fact have value, but it's not new value and it's not difficult - it's easy.

Kim

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-20 Thread Kim Jones




 On 20 Jun 2014, at 3:21 am, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little, 
 if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over 
 hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity would 
 enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you train 
 yourself, using inventive techniques. But that's not at all necessary. 

Exactly. Creativity is not some parlor trick - however amazing juggling 5 balls 
may seem. Anyone who can perform Chopin's more difficult piano compositions is 
doing the equivalent with ten balls - their fingers. Pianists are trained to 
perform exquisitely difficult music in the most routine manner. It works. 
Creativity, I insist is concerned with the generation of new ideas and value. 
There is this curious notion that creative thinking has to do with technical 
invention. This is a very minor aspect of creative thinking. New ideas are the 
stuff of change and progress in every field from science to art from politics 
to personal happiness. Creative thinking is concerned with breaking out of the 
concept prisons of old ideas. This leads to changes in attitude and approach to 
looking in a different way at things which have always been looked at in the 
same way. Liberation from old ideas and the stimulation of new ones are twin 
aspects of creative thinking.

Creative thinking is quite distinct from vertical thinking which is the 
traditional type of thinking. With vertical thinking you have to put your 
bricks together in a way that is correct at every step of the way otherwise 
the tower might come out wrong. In other words one moves forward by 
sequential steps each of which must be fully justified. The distinction between 
the two modes of thinking is sharp. For instance, in Lateral Thinking (creative 
thinking) one uses information not for its own sake but for its effect. In LT 
one may have to be wrong at some stage in order to achieve a correct solution 
in the end. In vertical thinking (everyday thinking) this would be impossible. 
In LT one may deliberately seek out irrelevant information for it's creative 
discontinuous effect; in vertical thinking one selects only what is relevant 
because of the fear of being wrong.

Kim

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-20 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 to my knowledge, not one new DE solution has been found by Mathematica.


To my knowledge, not one new DE solution has not been incorporated into
Mathematica.

 it's database is upgraded by the solutions being found by mathematicians.


And as a result Mathematica can beat those very same mathematicians at
solving DE, it can find exact solutions in minutes or even seconds that no
human being ever could armed with just paper and pencil, they're just too
complicated.  And the same thing is true of finding integrals; in fact
forget about solving, some exact solutions are so long a human couldn't
even copy the answer to paper in the time Mathematica took so solve it, no
human could write fast enough.

 If Mathematica discovered new DE solutions, then [...]


Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were
discovered in the 19th and early 20th century.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-19 Thread ghibbsa



On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:31:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to 
 think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which 
 below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you 
 say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can 
 remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by 
 ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard 
 linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or 
 consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more 
 primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to 
 be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to 
 be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply 
 because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and 
 intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack 
 on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-19 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

  most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
 they are creative because of it.

 I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
 creative than not juggling, at least a little.


Ok, I'll admit it.


   Its just that in today's world most don't find  watching a person juggle
 to be very interesting, but it's more interesting than watching a person
 just sit there and stare blankly into empty space.


Right, but this already contains a clue that interesting is more relevant
than difficult when it comes to creativity. But it begs the question a
little bit, because you could define creativity as the ability to generate
interesting things. Of course, you could then say that generating
interesting things is difficult, but I would say that it's a very specific
type of difficulty, that doesn't generalise well to all cognitive tasks.
(thus my accountant example)




  I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty.


 It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a
 paintball gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on
 this planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many.


Again, I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular
definition.


 Therefore creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the
 beholder; what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you.


Agreed. Then novelty is also in the eye of the beholder, and at a certain
level of abstraction there is nothing novel about a paintball pattern for
most people. It might look novel to some naive pattern recognition
algorithm. Higher level image recognition might always say this is a
paintball pattern, no matter what the specific pixels are. It will also
take higher level modelling of human minds and culture to be able to decide
if a paintball pattern is novel, or interesting to a human.

My point is that equating creativity with difficulty seems to simplistic.
Creativity is difficult, but it doesn't follow that difficult is creative.

Telmo.


   John K Clark


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-19 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:


  you could define creativity as the ability to generate interesting
 things.


OK.

 I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular
 definition.


There is no circularity. Although there are several competing definitions
of complexity they all have one thing in common, they're all objective;
but interesting is 100% subjective, it is a desire to find out more about
something.

 interesting is more relevant than difficult when it comes to
 creativity.


There is a connection between the two;  if something is too simple then our
curiosity about it has been satiated and there just isn't any more
information about it to know, and if it's very complex and we haven't yet
done our homework to put the information already available into some sort
of logical order in our mind then there is little desire to obtain yet more
information. Yes a scientist may desire more information about puzzling
phenomenon X in the hope of solving the problem, but only after he has
already mastered the information already known about the strange X effect.

 novelty is also in the eye of the beholder


It can be but something like a paintball splatter is novel to everyone, and
it's complex too, but few would desire more information about it so it's
not very interesting.


  My point is that equating creativity with difficulty seems to
 simplistic.


It is too simplistic, I equated creativity with difficulty and novelty and
interest.

 Creativity is difficult, but it doesn't follow that difficult is creative.


True, but I would always call coming up with something that was difficult
(or complex) and novel and interesting creative.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-19 Thread Terren Suydam

As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little,
if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over
hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity would
enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you train
yourself, using inventive techniques. But that's not at all necessary.

Creativity in juggling comes into play in terms of tricks, but that's a
different point than what Telmo was saying.

Terren


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

  most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
 they are creative because of it.

 I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
 creative than not juggling, at least a little.  Its just that in today's
 world most don't find  watching a person juggle to be very interesting, but
 it's more interesting than watching a person just sit there and stare
 blankly into empty space.

  I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty.


 It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a
 paintball gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on
 this planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many.
 Therefore creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the
 beholder; what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you.


   John K Clark


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-19 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

I'm ok nowadays with creativity, beauty, aesthetics as undefinable pointer
to transcendental properties better not named or scrutinized, but
inhabited, lived and interpreted by various entities.

Difficulty, novelty, interest, as with any list, or the various definitions
laid down by history, seem to ignore incompleteness' possible role here;
even the Jobs definition á la Creativity is just combining two previously
uncombined things; that's why creative people don't think of themselves as
creative, they just seized an opportunity unique to their pov at that
time... fails in the transcendental, not nameable department.

Because that's it's main spice, if I had to place a bet... which is also
why there will always be arguing about taste, contrary to the saying.
Arguing about taste should be prohibited. Not even mentioned. I mention it
only to point out its perils ;-)  Creative is whatever computers can't
do; there is some truth to this beyond the pride of humans. Perhaps for
good reason. PGC


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:

 As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very
 little, if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory
 over hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity
 would enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you
 train yourself, using inventive techniques. But that's not at all
 necessary.

 Creativity in juggling comes into play in terms of tricks, but that's a
 different point than what Telmo was saying.

 Terren


 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

  most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
 they are creative because of it.

 I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
 creative than not juggling, at least a little.  Its just that in today's
 world most don't find  watching a person juggle to be very interesting, but
 it's more interesting than watching a person just sit there and stare
 blankly into empty space.

  I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty.


 It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a
 paintball gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on
 this planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many.
 Therefore creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the
 beholder; what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you.


   John K Clark


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:





 On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
 understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.


 Kim, what do you think of this:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna


 I find that very exciting indeed, Telmo. This indeed looks like real
 creativity to me. The process of selecting the right shape came about by a
 random generator followed by evaluation of usefulness. That's precisely
 what Lateral Thinking is and does.


Glad you liked it!



 This bit is even more to the point:

 The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because
 it has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with
 traditional manual design methods.

 Creativity involves CURIOSITY (Suck it and see...). There is some kind
 of attractor that pulls the interest, the attention for a human that sends
 the mind in a certain direction. Judgement is suspended while exploration
 takes place. The machine on the other hand can approximate that with random
 choice algorithms.


This is something that I always felt strongly about: the importance of
randomness in true AI. I find it somewhat surprising how it is absent
from most discussions of AI, excluding the evolutionary computation
community.


 The only thing missing here from this is self-awareness.


Maybe...


 Otherwise I would say we have the basis of personhood. So, I was wrong. A
 machine can pull something out of nothing. It's still a bit zombified but
 getting close.
 Thanks.


Cheers
Telmo.



 Kim

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

  OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
 better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.


  Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
 definitely.


Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20
years and Mathematica can beat its programers too.

 There are new solutions being discovered all the time,


And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time.

 and its by humans,


But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught
by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for
discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers
had teachers too and so

 Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator) is
 basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such as
 [blah blah]


Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be broken
down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and
impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves
be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and
awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and
dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then
conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist?

 Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task.


Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed
by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself. Therefore it's
true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task
but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's
creative to you might not be for me.


  I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not
 creative.


You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy.
But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference
between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the
difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat
you'd say he was wonderfully creative.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:

   OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential
 equations better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.


  Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
 definitely.


 Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20
 years and Mathematica can beat its programers too.

  There are new solutions being discovered all the time,


 And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time.

  and its by humans,


 But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught
 by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for
 discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers
 had teachers too and so

  Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator)
 is basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such
 as [blah blah]


 Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be
 broken down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and
 impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves
 be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and
 awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and
 dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then
 conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist?

  Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task.


 Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task
 performed by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself.
 Therefore it's true that creativity is not related to the absolute
 difficulty of the task but it is related to how difficult it would be for
 you to do it; so what's creative to you might not be for me.


  I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its
 not creative.


 You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy.
 But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference
 between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the
 difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat
 you'd say he was wonderfully creative.


I don't think this analogy holds. For example, most people can't juggle 5
balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks they are creative because of it.
Accountants used to be able to sum columns of numbers much faster than the
average person. They are the stereotype for non-creativity.

I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty. Maybe
coherent at the human-brain level. Here are a number of things that are
quite creative but not necessarily hard to create:

http://www.reddit.com/r/fifthworldpics

The problem with AI-generated art is perhaps similar to the problem with
the Turing test: the only way to win is by faking something. Genuine AI art
might only be appreciated by other AIs.

Telmo.




   John K Clark




  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
 is conscious is you. 


The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 

But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
not be...
 

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which 
would require listing important characteristics of the 
consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness are mutually independent?


 I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
 conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
 intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
 can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
 consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
 information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
 conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
 least one.   

  The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
 he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
 nobel-genius. 


 I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
 meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
 silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
 saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
 that bullshit reason?

  Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 


 I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of Quantum 
 Mechanics.  

  What sort of results does that explanation produce?


 The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
 the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
 possibility that life will develop.  

  John K Clark




-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this 
later  with the rest, cheer.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
 is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
 and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
 experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
 are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
 not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness are mutually independent?


 I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
 conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
 intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
 can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
 consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
 information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
 conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
 least one.   

  The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
 he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
 nobel-genius. 


 I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
 meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
 silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
 saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
 that bullshit reason?

  Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 


 I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of 
 Quantum Mechanics.  

  What sort of results does that explanation produce?


 The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
 the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
 possibility that life will develop.  

  John K Clark




-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

 most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
they are creative because of it.

I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
creative than not juggling, at least a little.  Its just that in today's
world most don't find  watching a person juggle to be very interesting, but
it's more interesting than watching a person just sit there and stare
blankly into empty space.

 I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty.


It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a paintball
gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on this
planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many. Therefore
creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the beholder;
what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
 there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
 humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 
 bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered 
 entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply 
 because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and 
 intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack 
 on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet 
 undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Telmo Menezes


 What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
 understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.


Kim, what do you think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Kim Jones





On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well 
 understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.
 
 Kim, what do you think of this:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna 

I find that very exciting indeed, Telmo. This indeed looks like real creativity 
to me. The process of selecting the right shape came about by a random 
generator followed by evaluation of usefulness. That's precisely what Lateral 
Thinking is and does. 

This bit is even more to the point:

The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because it 
has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with 
traditional manual design methods. 

Creativity involves CURIOSITY (Suck it and see...). There is some kind of 
attractor that pulls the interest, the attention for a human that sends the 
mind in a certain direction. Judgement is suspended while exploration takes 
place. The machine on the other hand can approximate that with random choice 
algorithms. The only thing missing here from this is self-awareness. Otherwise 
I would say we have the basis of personhood. So, I was wrong. A machine can 
pull something out of nothing. It's still a bit zombified but getting close. 
Thanks.

Kim

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.


No problem.

 The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
 always show up together, never one on its own.


I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain is
conscious is you. And in fact you should know from personal experience that
what you say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one
can remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

 So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and
 consciousness are mutually independent?


I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be
conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very
intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it
can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if
consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way
information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any
conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at
least one.

 The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before he
 did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a
 nobel-genius.


I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a
meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a
silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and
saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and
that bullshit reason?

 Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you?


I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics.

 What sort of results does that explanation produce?


The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of the
fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the
possibility that life will develop.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
 do so


OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.

 Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation


Computers are better than humans at that too.

 I disagree that being a research librarian doesn't take creativity,


At one time it took a lot of creativity to be a good research librarian but
not anymore, today computers are good at it and creativity is whatever a
computer isn't good at. Yet.

 I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always
 something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons.


One thing that AI research has taught us is that we were completely wrong
about what was inherently easy and what was inherently hard. Telling the
difference between a whale and a watermelon takes far more brainpower than
solving differential equations, it's just that to our ancestors on the
African savanna being good at solving differential equations didn't much
increase the likelihood your genes would make it into the next generation,
but being good at image recognition did. If you like all human beings could
just glance at a differential equation and instantly know what its
solutions were with virtually no effort you'd say it required no
creativity; but if you had to go down lots of logical dead ends and it took
you many hours of deep thought before you were able to tell the difference
between a whale and a watermelon you'd say it took great creativity.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jun 2014, at 03:37, Kim Jones wrote:


hY

You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one,  
any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know  
how to play one or understand the workings of a combustion engine to  
know how to drive a car. There is less of a need to have a theory of  
intelligence than there is a need for people to act intelligently.  
Someone can be plain daft and still show excellent thinking skills.  
There are many examples of those who made good with absolutely no  
chance at all in the IQ stakes.




I like to sum up this by explaining the difference between little  
geniuses and big geniuses:


Little geniuses say little stupidities. Big geniuses say big  
stupidities.


I distinguish intelligence from competence.

Intelligence is needed to develop competence, but competence has a  
negative feedback on intelligence.


I think intelligence is more something like a state of mind, a sort of  
alertness not to conclude too quickly on anything.
 In judo, it would be the art of falling well, as intelligence might  
be the courage to recognize our error.

An ability to change one's mind about something.

Intelligence might be related to the trust of some adults to you when  
you are a little kid. Too much yes or too much no put intelligence  
in peril.


Intelligence needs love (which might need two universal numbers).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:15:17PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:
 
  Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
  do so
 
 
 OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
 better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.
 

Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
definitely. There are new solutions being discovered all the time, and
its by humans, not mathematica. Mathematica's integrate operator (and
the equivalent desolve operator) is basically a convenient interface
that applies standard algorithms such as variable substitution, and
integration by parts to a database of known solutions.

Of course I can conceive of a machine being able to generate new
solutions where none existed before, say by an evolutionary algorithm,
and I would actually call such a machine creative, but it's not been
done yet for DEs.


  Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation
 
 
 Computers are better than humans at that too.

I never said they weren't. My claim was that optimising the
performance of numerical integration still involves human creativity.

 
  I disagree that being a research librarian doesn't take creativity,
 
 
 At one time it took a lot of creativity to be a good research librarian but
 not anymore, today computers are good at it and creativity is whatever a
 computer isn't good at. Yet.
 

What's changed is that Google has automated a lot of the curation and
indexing parts of a librarian's job (the uncreative parts) such that a
academic researcher can perform the necessary creative aspects of literature
research without the need of a specialist librarian.

Nevertheless, I could well imagine there being some groups that could
justify employing a researcher to perform the necessary literature
search and creatively summarise the results to feed into someone
else's work. Politicians spring to mind as having this need, for example.


  I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always
  something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons.
 
 
 One thing that AI research has taught us is that we were completely wrong
 about what was inherently easy and what was inherently hard. Telling the
 difference between a whale and a watermelon takes far more brainpower than
 solving differential equations, it's just that to our ancestors on the
 African savanna being good at solving differential equations didn't much
 increase the likelihood your genes would make it into the next generation,
 but being good at image recognition did. If you like all human beings could
 just glance at a differential equation and instantly know what its
 solutions were with virtually no effort you'd say it required no
 creativity; but if you had to go down lots of logical dead ends and it took
 you many hours of deep thought before you were able to tell the difference
 between a whale and a watermelon you'd say it took great creativity.
 

Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task. I agree that
image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not
creative. Devising image recognition algorithms is creative, however.

Similarly, if some genius could devise 5 new solutions to differential
equations over their morning coffee, then that genius is creative. It
would be a no less creative task if every member of our species could
do the same task.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread meekerdb


On 6/17/2014 4:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

Nevertheless, I could well imagine there being some groups that could
justify employing a researcher to perform the necessary literature
search and creatively summarise the results to feed into someone
else's work. Politicians spring to mind as having this need, for example.


That's a large part of what law clerks do for lawyers and judges.  My daughter took a 
summer job when she was in graduate school to find, review, and summarize research papers 
on measurement of water pollution in fresh water lakes.  I think the deal was for 100 
papers at $15 each.


Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute




On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
 equal between computers and humans: 


 I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
 what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
 things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
 sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
 really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
 only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
 computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
 tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
 ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
 *really* intelligent. 

  John K Clark


 OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
 clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
 John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
 of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
 over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
 concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
 amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
 my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
 robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
 you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
 pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
 pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
 saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
 lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
 like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
 that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
 all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
 why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
 failing and so having to keep buggering on. 

 Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
 moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
 in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
 and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
 our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
 by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
 epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
 discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
 then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
 upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
 about. 

 Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
 ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
 that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
 possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
 Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
 an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
 troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
 you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
 another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
 out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
 like you feel. 

 So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
 with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
 carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
 duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
 because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
 actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
 indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
 lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
 because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
 best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
 have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. 

 But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was 
 indistinctness, and still is now. Can't tell if it's less or more because 
 that's indistinctness for you.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to be 
the great predictor.

-Original Message-
From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 9:37 pm
Subject: Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 16 Jun 2014, at 1:14 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is 
the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the 
car is driven. 

If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able to 
get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or Microsoft, 
it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and some things are 
not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually works. And that's 
why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or more likely a machine) 
comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL KNOW, probably in just a 
matter of hours.

John,

hW

De Bono was not theorist, that is true. He merely worked with intelligence and 
showed how thinking ability can be hoisted up to more effective levels despite 
intelligence or IQ as educators refer to it, IQ being one of the favourite 
Aristotelian boxes into which people are dumped, forever to sink deeper. What 
makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and 
no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. Nobody ever 
understands what creativity is about who does not separate perception from 
thinking. I asked de Bono in 2012 if he felt it were possible that one day 
machines would actually think, according to his definition of true thinking, 
which involves a studied use of creativity. His response was only if they are 
allowed to do their own perception otherwise they will only be zombies.

hY

You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any more 
than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play one or 
understand the workings of a combustion engine to know how to drive a car. 
There is less of a need to have a theory of intelligence than there is a need 
for people to act intelligently. Someone can be plain daft and still show 
excellent thinking skills. There are many examples of those who made good with 
absolutely no chance at all in the IQ stakes.

hR

You don't have to worry about the size of your dick as long as you know how to 
use what you've been born with. Size may matter in some arcane respect but 
skill at use is what counts. The person who ultimately comes to possess a 
winning theory of intelligence may well be Mary Bloggs of Blainey who has no 
university education, was home-schooled and who cannot even complete a simple 
crossword, yet her perceptual ability outstrips a Nobel Laureate.

hG

Apart from that, I would say that a way to understand the workings of 
intelligence is to simply say that this is the speed factor involved in 
neurotransmission. 

hR

You will in all probability say that this is wrong or inadequate. Why should 
today be different.

hW

 Some people have fast, powerful minds, others do not. The ones who don't have 
the V8 engines upstairs tend to be the ones who exercise caution and think 
slowly. You might have a lousy IQ but you can still succeed in life if you use 
what you've got and practise thinking. Machines, when and if they ever get an 
intelligence, will have precisely this issue to deal with as well. 

hR

Intelligence is not the main issue. We've all got one but what we do not yet 
adequately understand is what makes a PERSON. For my money that has something 
to do with Comp.

Kim 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread Kim Jones


 On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
 Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to 
 be the great predictor.
  

Link? Clip? Interesting

K

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread Pierz



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:44:24 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 15 Jun 2014, at 03:34, Pierz wrote:



 On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:

 On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
 mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down 
 below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was 
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm 
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end 
 of the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
 it.
 

 It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


 Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by 
 a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
 processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
 cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
 But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
 predicted amount (or so I'm told).


 No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing 
 serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers 
 have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this 
 can't continue indefinitely. However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we 
 require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat 
 expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of 
 course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the 
 massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing 
 anyway. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve 
 human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's 
 an article of faith that all that is required is a programming 
 breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is 
 fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be 
 convinced that we have any understanding of that yet. I am familiar of 
 course with all the arguments on this subject, including Bruno's theory 
 about unprovable true statements etc, but in the end I remain unconvinced. 
 For instance I would ask how we would torture an artificial consciousness 
 (if we were cruel enough to want to)? How would we induce pain or pleasure? 
 Sure we can reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some kind 
 of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and knows 
 what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how 
 incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain). 
 Anyway. Old hat I guess. My point is it comes down to a bet, as Bruno 
 likes to say. An statement of faith. At least Bruno admits it is such. 


 I do more than admit this. I insist it has to be logically the case that 
 it needs an act of faith.

 That is also the reason why I insist that it is a theology. It is, at the 
 least, the belief in a form of (ditital) reincarnation. 




 As things stand, given the current state of AI, I'd bet the other way. 


 Comp is not so nice with AI. Theoretical AI is a nest of beautiful 
 results, but they are all necessarily non constructive. We cannot program 
 intelligence, we can only recognize it, or not. It depends in large part of 
 us.

 In theoretical artificial intelligence, or learning theory(*), the results 
 can be sum up by the fact that a machine will be more intelligent than 
 another one if she is able to make more errors, to change its mind more 
 often, to work in team, to allow non falsifiable hypothesis, etc. 

 Certainly those look like sound approaches to problem solving. But if we 
consider our paradigmatic example of

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


  What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
 understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
 yet.


The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers
can't do YET.  Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research
librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of
years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that
stopped being true in 1997.  Being the  best Jeopardy champion on the
planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving
differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s.

Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect
on that fact while we still can, therefore I  suggest that June 23 (Alan
Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called
Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on
the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be
done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right
now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers
become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and
creativity will no longer be required for image recognition.

 You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any
 more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play
 one


It's true that even a great pianist need not have any idea of how his piano
works, but it's not true if he intends to make a better piano, then he had
better have a very good theory of pianos.

  a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to simply say that
 this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission.


Some signals in the brain move as slowly as .01 meters per second, the slow
diffusion of some hormones for example, but even the very fastest signals
in the brain move at only 100 meters per second. Light moves at 300,000,000
meters per second, and in a computer the distances the signal must travel
will be shorter because the components are smaller. Game over.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Hold on a secI will youtube link...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEq305SizA
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aJPF5HJ9Is
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DON-aM2tze4
 
-Original Message-
From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 7:15 am
Subject: Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



 On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
 Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to 
be the great predictor.
  

Link? Clip? Interesting

K

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:18:14 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
 equal between computers and humans: 


 I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
 what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
 things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
 sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
 really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
 only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
 computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
 tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
 ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
 *really* intelligent. 

  John K Clark


 OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
 clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
 John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
 of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
 over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
 concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
 amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
 my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
 robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
 you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
 pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
 pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
 saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
 lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
 like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
 that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
 all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
 why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
 failing and so having to keep buggering on. 

 Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
 moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
 in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
 and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
 our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
 by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
 epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
 discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
 then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
 upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
 about. 

 Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
 ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
 that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
 possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
 Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
 an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
 troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
 you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
 another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
 out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
 like you feel. 

 So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
 with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
 carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
 duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
 because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
 actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
 indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
 lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
 because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
 best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
 have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. 

 But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was 
 indistinctness, and still is now. Can't

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:29:43 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au 
 javascript: wrote:
  

  What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well 
 understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that 
 yet. 


 The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers 
 can't do YET.  Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research 
 librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of 
 years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that 
 stopped being true in 1997.  Being the  best Jeopardy champion on the 
 planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving 
 differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s. 

 
might be wrong but creatively seems almost as mercurial as consciousness. 
Not sure such thing exists but fair enough some word is needed to fill that 
blank. 

What you say about it above. Do you not find these mysteries of the brain 
interestingor is it more you sort of got fed up with endless navel 
gazing on such things? I mean...I bet you do think about these questions 
quietly, when no one is looking? 

Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect 
 on that fact while we still can, therefore I  suggest that June 23 (Alan 
 Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called 
 Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on 
 the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be 
 done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right 
 now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers 
 become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and 
 creativity will no longer be required for image recognition.  

  You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any 
 more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play 
 one 


 It's true that even a great pianist need not have any idea of how his 
 piano works, but it's not true if he intends to make a better piano, then 
 he had better have a very good theory of pianos.   

   a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to sim 

 ply say that this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission. 


 Some signals in the brain move as slowly as .01 meters per second, the 
 slow diffusion of some hormones for example, but even the very fastest 
 signals in the brain move at only 100 meters per second. Light moves at 
 300,000,000 meters per second, and in a computer the distances the signal 
 must travel will be shorter because the components are smaller. Game over.


 


   John K Clark










-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
 equal between computers and humans: 


 I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally judged on what 
 they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
 things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. 


sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 

I do agree with thisbut wonder how easily such things would be 
compared. 

In an early step in your wider argument about consciousness/intelligence, 
from memory you basically separate them...hence talking here about 
intelligence alone
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always 
show up together, never one on its own. Some are more or less 
intelligence/conscious, but when we aren't conscious, and not in REM, not a 
lot is going on. In REM - something interesting might be going on, but we 
probably don't have much conventional intelligence. 

So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
consciousness are mutually independent? 

I have no sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly 
 he wasn't really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah 
 way. 


I've never heard that about Einstein. The guy won a nobel for the 
photoelectric effect way before he did the flying on rainbows thing for 
insights. So Einstein was a nobel-genius. There was an earlier discussion 
we about Hilber having published the complete equations a week 
earlier...which Hilbert simply didn't bother claiming for...a  possible 
reason the  Nobel Committee never awarded Einstein for that one. 

I remember in that conversation, your main line of argument that Hilbert 
wasn't credible was that he was a mathematician. I had to think about 
that...but you are aware that Maxwell, Poincaire, Newton I think...in 
fact possible the majority of the top table geniuses in science 
werepossibly. 

FWIW

 

 I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. 


I feel exactly the same way. 

Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? What sort of results does that 
explanation produce? 
 

 Someday computers will be able to not just do better science but do better 
 art and tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human 
 that has ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say 
 they're not *really* intelligent. 


There's a lot of assumptions going into that. I'd agree 'all else being 
equal' that you make a reasonable prediction. But how often is all else 
equal?  




  


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-16 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29:42AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
 
 
   What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
  understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
  yet.
 
 
 The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers
 can't do YET.  Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research
 librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of
 years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that
 stopped being true in 1997.  Being the  best Jeopardy champion on the
 planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving
 differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s.
 

Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will
always do so, as not all DEs have closed form solutions, and no
algorithm will find the closed form solution for all equations that
do. Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation, which hasn't
required creativity since the mid-1800s, though still does if the aim
is to compute the approximation to desired levels of accuracy in
practical amounts of time.

On a slightly lesser note - I disagree that being a research librarian
doesn't take creativity, although obviously Google has completely
changed the rules.

As for Chess - doesn't Deep Blue exhibit some forms of bounded
creativity anyway?

 Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect
 on that fact while we still can, therefore I  suggest that June 23 (Alan
 Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called
 Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on
 the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be
 done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right
 now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers
 become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and
 creativity will no longer be required for image recognition.
 

I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always
something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons. It might
take creativity to create a machine that is good at it, but I doubt
that machine itself will be creative.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 15 Jun 2014, at 03:34, Pierz wrote:




On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
 Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any  
sophisticated
 piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble  
mailing

 list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
 incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
 involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
 increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down  
below.
 And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is  
still pretty

 much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
 intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was  
wearing,
 and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well,  
I'm still
 agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this  
conspicuous
 failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however  
consider
 the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own  
dear
 Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the  
end of the

 century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
 computational power required for human intelligence is already  
present in a
 modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough  
yet. I
 think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually  
believes it.



It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.

Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago,  
going by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That  
is, the processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have  
gained more cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory  
and more storage. But the density of the components on the chips  
hasn't increased by the predicted amount (or so I'm told).


No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are  
posing serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So  
far, engineers have - more or less - found ways of working around  
these problems, but this can't continue indefinitely. However, it's  
really a subsidiary point. If we require 1000x the power of a modern  
laptop, that's easily (if somewhat expensively) achieved with  
parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of course this only helps  
if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the massive  
parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing  
anyway. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could  
achieve human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped  
together. It's an article of faith that all that is required is a  
programming breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human  
intelligence is fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and  
I've yet to be convinced that we have any understanding of that yet.  
I am familiar of course with all the arguments on this subject,  
including Bruno's theory about unprovable true statements etc, but  
in the end I remain unconvinced. For instance I would ask how we  
would torture an artificial consciousness (if we were cruel enough  
to want to)? How would we induce pain or pleasure? Sure we can  
reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some kind of  
learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and knows  
what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how  
incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain).  
Anyway. Old hat I guess. My point is it comes down to a bet, as  
Bruno likes to say. An statement of faith. At least Bruno admits it  
is such.


I do more than admit this. I insist it has to be logically the case  
that it needs an act of faith.


That is also the reason why I insist that it is a theology. It is, at  
the least, the belief in a form of (ditital) reincarnation.






As things stand, given the current state of AI, I'd bet the other way.


Comp is not so nice with AI. Theoretical AI is a nest of beautiful  
results, but they are all necessarily non constructive. We cannot  
program intelligence, we can only recognize it, or not. It depends in  
large part of us.


In theoretical artificial intelligence, or learning theory(*), the  
results can be sum up by the fact that a machine will be more  
intelligent than another one if she is able to make more errors, to  
change its mind more often, to work in team, to allow non falsifiable  
hypothesis, etc.


Machine's intelligence look like this. Whatever theory of intelligence  
you suggest, a machine will be more intelligent by not applying it.


Intelligence is a protagorean virtue too, if not the most

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote
  

   A lot is understood about intelligence in humans 


 Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we 
 could double our IQ...

 
You're one of the people I almost always relate to in terms of 
thinking/science. I'm interested in this subject. There are some context 
issues going on John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind 
of measure. Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science 
behind I.Q.? 

The reason is that we live in a time where there is large pressure on 
people to toe certain lines whether they believe its true or not. If I can 
know whether you/others are toeing that line, then I will steer clear of 
the things people would rather not look at. 

Reason I think you might be in that categoryis


 

  [ ...]by knowing which modes of thought are productive and which just 
 waste time and lead nowhere. 


John this statement appears to suggest  I.Q. differences between 
individuals are a matter of good or bad philosophy in modes of thinking. 
There's a huge amount science that is tied to thousands of large scale 
tests on the one hand, and hundreds of some of the strongest neurological 
science, that has settled fairly firmly these last 30 years on I.Q. 
difference being 0.8 heritable, and 0.2 uncertain. A huge amount of work 
has gone into study of whether I.Q. changes through life. Basically, the 
answer is yes, from about 0 to 5 or 6 years old, kids can lose ground or 
gain ground. However, by about 8 these fluctuations restore to expectations 
on other measure and *never* fluctuate again. 

We talk about past generations who stood up for what was true and all the 
rest. But every generation faces this. Right now, a whole science is being 
overturned by pressure and 'scientific' arguments none of which have EVER 
explained the empirical evidence, OR conducted a SINGLE survey ... i.e. an 
empirical test involving tests or whatever, that has backed up their 
postulations, or failed to verify the science of IQ.  

So what are we talking about here? Are we talking where the hard science 
is, or are we talking about something else? I need to know, because I'm 
committed to science, whatever. That's where I am. 



 

 

  we can do things like make a list of life outcomes that are most 
 strongly tied in with intelligence


 And if a machine can obtain more of those outcomes than I can then the 
 machine is smarter than me. 


Yes ...with the same constraints and limitations as well. But John...,we 
have no means to do this with a computer as now. While we do have means to 
do this with ourselves. So for that reason, the problem itself is not equal 
because the means are not equal. Certainly the underlying problem, with 
means controlled, may well be. We don't know. But why not.  

  


  you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness.


 Yes, that's why so many people on this list have a consciousness theory 
 but not one has a intelligence theory. 


Sure, but I would normally assume we are speaking first and foremost about 
scientific knowledge. Of course, laypeople don't necessarily understand 
intelligence and may not be interested in that so much. Consciousness is 
focussed in lay population precisely because there is no hard science. So 
that's reasonable. It's good that people don't try to come up with theories 
while ignoring the science - which is the definition of a crank. 

But there is something with the same characteristics as a 'crank' but when 
the motivation is due more to coercion or misinformation. Are you for 
example, in your theory (of the status of cognitive science) consciously or 
unconsciously ignoring the science? 
 

 There is no easier job in the world than being a consciousness theorist 
 because any theory works about as well as any other, and even if you happen 
 to stumble upon the correct one there is no way to know that you have. On 
 the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
 correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
 world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the 
 right track. 


I totally agree with your observations about consciousness theory. But your 
conclusion that this is the mark of easiness...I would argue you are 
missing a layer at which an important distinction separates the same 
observations into both 'easy' as you say, and 'hard'. That distinction is 
between scientific knowledge and the history of that, and layperson 
/philosophical knowledge and the history of that. 

All hard won scientific knowledge started out as dismally as consciousness 
theorizing. Discovery chemical involved impossibly hard problems that no 
one even had the first clue about for so long. 

So

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

 On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the
 correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the
 world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the
 right track.



 That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that
 intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the
 skill with which the car is driven.


If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able
to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or
Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and
some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually
works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or
more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL
KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours.


  A big part of intelligence is indeed knowing how to choose modes of
 thinking


And knowing what problem to work on, it should be big enough that solving
it will make a difference but not so big that there is virtually no chance
of being successful. For example, Darwin intuitively felt that with hard
work he had a moderately good chance of solving the problem of the origin
of species, but he didn't even touch the problem of the origin of life, he
felt it was just too difficult and there was no hope of solving that
problem in his day. And in retrospect we can see he was right.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au 
 javascript: wrote:

   On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
 correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
 world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the 
 right track.

  

  That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that 
 intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the 
 skill with which the car is driven. 


 If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able 
 to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or 
 Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and 
 some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually 
 works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or 
 more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL 
 KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours.  


 The story all accumulated robust knowledge features radical layering 
between 'details' , sometimes speaking to a foundational 'reduceable' 
scheme, sometimes featuring as yet not understand laws of emergence, and so 
on. 

It's arguable not realistic to assess the status of knowledge in terms of 
some as yet not understood but suspected layer. Purely for the reason, your 
position is necessarily non-distinct. There are going to be senses in which 
you are right. As in..we don't understand the fundamental biological 
architectural basis of intelligence.

But there are layers of understanding notwithstanding that deficit, which 
exhibit the characteristics of reliable scientific knowledge. 

What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that something 
is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans), that involves 
implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of difference in the 
current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has in respect of, 
here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic reality of knowledge 
that it is layered and that layers are typically independent on some or 
other sense, and therefore robust in and of themselves.  

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:41:21 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au 
 wrote:

   On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
 correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
 world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on 
 the 
 right track.

  

  That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that 
 intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the 
 skill with which the car is driven. 


 If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able 
 to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or 
 Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and 
 some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually 
 works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or 
 more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL 
 KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours.  


  The story all accumulated robust knowledge features radical layering 
 between 'details' , sometimes speaking to a foundational 'reduceable' 
 scheme, sometimes featuring as yet not understand laws of emergence, and so 
 on. 

 It's arguable not realistic to assess the status of knowledge in terms of 
 some as yet not understood but suspected layer. Purely for the reason, your 
 position is necessarily non-distinct. There are going to be senses in which 
 you are right. As in..we don't understand the fundamental biological 
 architectural basis of intelligence.

 But there are layers of understanding notwithstanding that deficit, which 
 exhibit the characteristics of reliable scientific knowledge. 

 What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that 
 something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans), 
 that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of 
 difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has 
 in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic 
 reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically 
 independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of 
 themselves.  


p.s. I am interested in people and knowledge. So I keep an eye on the 
structure of their arguments. You are amazing strong in the area of physics 
and realism regarding a range of important matters. Butthis exact 
approach to argument you make here on intelligence, you also make over on 
the climate thread. 

It could be coincidence. But on the other hand, it happens to be the case 
that, just as individuals will learn effective ways of doing others things, 
they also will learn effective ways of rationalizing when they feel they 
have to. 

Intelligence and Climate also happen to share an important - independent - 
characteristic between them. Both are 'controversial' in the same 
cross-domain kind of way. That is, not controversial within empirical 
science, but between empirical science and some sort of external - but very 
powerful - force

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure.
 Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.?


I was using the term IQ, perhaps sloppily, as a sort of shorthand, I
certainly didn't mean to suggest it was the be all and end all. Indeed  it
would be remarkable if the most complex thing in the known universe,
intelligence, could be measured with just one number; you need 2 numbers (a
Vector) just to measure something as simple as the wind, one for speed and
one for direction. I imagine that for a good measure of intelligence you'd
need a Tensor, and a big one.

Besides consisting of only one number another problem is that IQ tests are
written by psychologists, I don't happen to believe that the very brightest
members of our species tend to go into that profession and tests have
difficulty measuring the intelligence of somebody smarter than the one who
wrote the test. When the great physicist Richard Feynman was in high school
he had an IQ test and all he got was a mediocre 125. The best definition of
intelligence that I can think of is the sort of thing that Richard Feynman
did,  therefore it is not Feynman but the authors of the test who should
feel embarrassed by this. Meanwhile  one of the highest ranked Mensa
members alive today, with an IQ north of 200, works as a bouncer in a bar.

The man with the highest IQ ever may have been a fellow by the name of
William James Sidis (1898-1944). Sidis's IQ can only be approximately known
even though he took many many IQ tests, the tests were just not up to the
task, he was off the charts. Abraham Sterling, director of New York City's
Aptitude Testing Institute said:

He easily had an IQ between 250 and 300, I have never heard of anybody
with such an IQ. I would say that he was the most prodigious intellect of
our entire generation.

So what did this prodigious intellect accomplish in his 46 years? He
wrote a book about streetcar transfers. That's about it. It seems that high
IQ and genius are not quite synonymous.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that
 something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)


Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am doing.

 that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of
 difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has
 in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic
 reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically
 independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of
 themselves.


Do me a favor, read the above aloud and then ask yourself if you really
expect others to understand what in the world you're talking about.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:16:22 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that 
 something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)


 Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am doing. 

  that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of 
 difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has 
 in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic 
 reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically 
 independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of 
 themselves. 


 Do me a favor, read the above aloud and then ask yourself if you really 
 expect others to understand what in the world you're talking about.

   John K Clark


You are absolutely right IMHO that's an appalling paragraph. It so happens 
I did for once read through, and did identify that exact paragraph. So, I'm 
hoping that you like me found the other parts comprehensible. I considered 
a follow on post re-stating that one, but because all I was doing was 
summing up what I'd said, I thought I'd risk you'd not need it. But what 
I'll do here is not only restate it, but restate in more science-convention 
vocabularly. 

Obviously bear in mind there's a context you'll have to refresh yourself on 
in what I'd said first. 

So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal 
between computers and humans: 

- You ignore how many independent fields and lines of stand alone evidence 
exist in those fields with respect to intelligence 

- In doing so, apart from the problem of doing that on its own terms: 

- you ignore the historic cumulative fact of robust knowledge that it 
features distributed layers of related yet on some measure independent 
fields of knowledge 

Does this help?

   

  


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure. 
 Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.? 


 I was using the term IQ, perhaps sloppily, as a sort of shorthand, I 
 certainly didn't mean to suggest it was the be all and end all. Indeed  it 
 would be remarkable if the most complex thing in the known universe, 
 intelligence, could be measured with just one number; you need 2 numbers (a 
 Vector) just to measure something as simple as the wind, one for speed and 
 one for direction. I imagine that for a good measure of intelligence you'd 
 need a Tensor, and a big one.


I agree with both points, the first one being substantial: that 
the distinct field of cognitive science is clearly inadequate and/or likely 
to be a partial answer to the question of intelligence. My response to that 
would be: nevertheless it does feature the hallmarks of robust knowledge. 

The second point is true, but only in the trivial case of someone takes a 
measurement, resulting in a number. In cognitive science arrives at 
the 'g-factor' from a large base of convergent statistically robust - and 
mutually independent - lines of evidence. 

It's also worth mentioning that a large amount of knowledge does in fact 
converge to individual values. Like constants of nature.  


 Besides consisting of only one number another problem is that IQ tests are 
 written by psychologists, I don't happen to believe that the very brightest 
 members of our species tend to go into that profession and tests have 
 difficulty measuring the intelligence of somebody smarter than the one who 
 wrote the test. 


Definitely agree with what you might be inferring about the current status 
in psychology study...in fact I'd probably say the field is pre-science and 
even on a worsening trajectory. 

However, just as a good university can have bad departments, and vice 
verca, psychology as a field will contain sub-domains that are better or 
worse. I'll leave that one open as to the veracity of psychometric testing 
and so on. I leave it open because I don't think it's a legitimate 
criticism of cognitice science because: 

- typically robust fields of knowledge exhibit convergent lines of 
evidence/science, that perform the plausible critical function of 
preserving only the hardest most reliable datum within each line (has to 
happen because the result is a single field, and we've already eliminated 
failed fields by saying 'robust fields'. 

- this is certainly the case in cognitive science. 
 

 When the great physicist Richard Feynman was in high school he had an IQ 
 test and all he got was a mediocre 125. The best definition of intelligence 
 that I can think of is the sort of thing that Richard Feynman did,  
 therefore it is not Feynman but the authors of the test who should feel 
 embarrassed by this. Meanwhile  one of the highest ranked Mensa members 
 alive today, with an IQ north of 200, works as a bouncer in a bar.


Yeah that'll be Chris Langan. It isn't really fair to dismiss someone 
because they choose a certain profession. Langan was young punk from a hard 
background, who learned to brawl and rather liked it, teenage tearaway, who 
oneday took a test, and was found to have at or near the highest IQ in 
history. The guy's head is visibly larger than one normally expects (and 
his bone is harder as people he nuts find out) 

Well look, I hang out with some v.high IQ fellows and your point has been 
my point there. Those places are full of good guys, but there's an awful 
stench of un-earned self-proclaimed status. Backed up, with dreadful 
sketches of everything humanity has done by I.Q. band. It's not uncommon 
for a guy with an I.Q. at the 4th standard deviation and above to be going 
around saying things like I'm already functioning at the level of 
Einstein. Fuck off! 

Yeah, so there's intuition for example. Which isn't explained, but at the 
end of day, just like I.Q. it's going to come down to regains of brain, 
and their connectors and so on. Personal testimony: some of stupidest 
attitudes - as well as some of the most brilliant - I have heard from guys 
with verified IQ scores 170+ 

So it's not a settled matter. But then again, there's that historic fact of 
robust knowledge featuring distributed layers of related but independent 
knowledge. None of what you or I have said, has actually undermined what is 
a layer of independently robust knowledge in intelligence., 


 The man with the highest IQ ever may have been a fellow by the name of 
 William James Sidis (1898-1944). Sidis's IQ can only be approximately known 
 even though he took many many IQ tests, the tests were just not up to the 
 task, he was off the charts. Abraham Sterling, director of New York City's 
 Aptitude Testing Institute said:

 He easily had an IQ between

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal
 between computers and humans:


I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on what
they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the
things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no
sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't
really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm
only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday
computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and
tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has
ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not
*really* intelligent.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-15 Thread Kim Jones




On 16 Jun 2014, at 1:14 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence 
 is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with 
 which the car is driven.
 
 If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able to 
 get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or 
 Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and some 
 things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually works. 
 And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or more 
 likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL KNOW, 
 probably in just a matter of hours.

John,

hW

De Bono was not theorist, that is true. He merely worked with intelligence and 
showed how thinking ability can be hoisted up to more effective levels despite 
intelligence or IQ as educators refer to it, IQ being one of the favourite 
Aristotelian boxes into which people are dumped, forever to sink deeper. What 
makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and 
no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. Nobody ever 
understands what creativity is about who does not separate perception from 
thinking. I asked de Bono in 2012 if he felt it were possible that one day 
machines would actually think, according to his definition of true thinking, 
which involves a studied use of creativity. His response was only if they are 
allowed to do their own perception otherwise they will only be zombies.

hY

You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any more 
than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play one or 
understand the workings of a combustion engine to know how to drive a car. 
There is less of a need to have a theory of intelligence than there is a need 
for people to act intelligently. Someone can be plain daft and still show 
excellent thinking skills. There are many examples of those who made good with 
absolutely no chance at all in the IQ stakes.

hR

You don't have to worry about the size of your dick as long as you know how to 
use what you've been born with. Size may matter in some arcane respect but 
skill at use is what counts. The person who ultimately comes to possess a 
winning theory of intelligence may well be Mary Bloggs of Blainey who has no 
university education, was home-schooled and who cannot even complete a simple 
crossword, yet her perceptual ability outstrips a Nobel Laureate.

hG

Apart from that, I would say that a way to understand the workings of 
intelligence is to simply say that this is the speed factor involved in 
neurotransmission. 

hR

You will in all probability say that this is wrong or inadequate. Why should 
today be different.

hW

 Some people have fast, powerful minds, others do not. The ones who don't have 
the V8 engines upstairs tend to be the ones who exercise caution and think 
slowly. You might have a lousy IQ but you can still succeed in life if you use 
what you've got and practise thinking. Machines, when and if they ever get an 
intelligence, will have precisely this issue to deal with as well. 

hR

Intelligence is not the main issue. We've all got one but what we do not yet 
adequately understand is what makes a PERSON. For my money that has something 
to do with Comp.

Kim 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
 equal between computers and humans: 


 I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
 what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
 things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
 sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
 really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
 only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
 computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
 tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
 ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
 *really* intelligent. 

  John K Clark


OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
failing and so having to keep buggering on. 

Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
about. 

Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
like you feel. 

So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. 

But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was 
indistinctness, and still is now. Can't tell if it's less or more because 
that's indistinctness for you. 

On the other hand, doesn't matter does it? It was indistinctness then, and 
that would have been proven if my reading

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 14 Jun 2014, at 03:49, LizR wrote:

On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already
hugely mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over decades of
incremental improvement involving thousands upon thousands of
workers building up layers of increasing abstraction from the
unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. And yet Siri, far from
being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty much dumb as dog-
shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised intelligence
built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing, and
she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm
still agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this
conspicuous failure represents evidence against computationalism. I
do however consider the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch
(and even our own dear Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains
or something by the end of the century or sooner to be deluded.
Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the computational power required for
human intelligence is already present in a modern laptop; we just
haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I think that is
preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.

This looks like a more realistic estimate...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

Making abstraction of the glial cells, and with some high neuronal
description level.

We might survive with such artificial brain, but we might get problem
after month or years.

Bruno

PD I have to go. More comment tomorrow probably.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

   The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
 current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.


 If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
 intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
 just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 

 
For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot is 
understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like make 
a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with intelligence, 
on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature generic 
activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or whatever. Then 
we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can learn skills by 
repetition and we have to be able to say whether these correlations are 
about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of thing has been 
going on now for over a century there are things like 'g factor'. 

It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
want to hear. 

So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
somewhere. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:


 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:

   The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
 current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.


 If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
 intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
 just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 

  
 For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot 
 is understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like 
 make a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with 
 intelligence, on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature 
 generic activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or 
 whatever. Then we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can 
 learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say whether these 
 correlations are about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of 
 thing has been going on now for over a century there are things like 'g 
 factor'. 

 It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
 be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
 particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
 it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
 makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
 constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
 want to hear. 

 So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
 need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
 anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
 consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
 in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
 field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
 life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
 somewhere. 


 Sorry I said  it appears you may be well informed in that respect but 
meant to say it appeared you MAY NOT be well informed on that respect. 
Purely because you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not 
consciousness. When we've got a hard science of intelligence in humans 
anyway, but  barely a brainfart thrown against the wall for consciousness 
thus far

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
  Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later. 
  
  
  On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 
 javascript: wrote: 
  
   On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 

Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
 going by 
   a 
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
   processors 
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, 
 i.e. 
they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the 
density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
 predicted 
amount (or so I'm told). 

   
   Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
   transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
 that 
   has 
   been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips 
   now on the market). 
   
   But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
   time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
   (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
   '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
   magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
   years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
   following purchases were made*: 
   
   1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
   1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
   2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
   2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
   2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
   
   * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
 facts 
   
   Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
   function of year. 
   

 Incidently, the kink at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
 systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
 purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
 colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
 flatter! 

 Cheers 

 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)


it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
which they do with you - my window anyway

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 
 javascript: wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
 mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was 
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm 
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
 the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
 it.
 

  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by 
 a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
 processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
 cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
 But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
 predicted amount (or so I'm told).
   
  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
 Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.

 Brent
 The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
 they build vacuum cleaners.
 --- Anon- 

Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from memory 
 - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile industry had 
advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting London--Oxford in half 
a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in its wake about crashes. 
Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the last he had to say on that 
score. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:19:16 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
 mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down 
 below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was 
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm 
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end 
 of the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
 it.
 

  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going 
 by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
 processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
 cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
 But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
 predicted amount (or so I'm told).
   
  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
 Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.

 Brent
 The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
 they build vacuum cleaners.
 --- Anon- 

 Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from 
 memory  - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile 
 industry had advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting 
 London--Oxford in half a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in 
 its wake about crashes. Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the 
 last he had to say on that score. y 


p.s.  just as someone else says they'll stick with Linux anyway, I'll 
probably stick with Microsoft even though I know Apple make a better box 
these days. Possibly silly reasons. I think MS made a lot of mistakes in 
their heydayand paid the price too because for a long while they had 
the power to 'make it so'. Be a monopoly if they wanted to be. But they - 
he - in doing so fooled himself into thinking economic laws are only about 
delivering a price service to the consumer. When they are just as relevant 
for the internals of an enterprise. So he paid the price and still is and 
won't re-coupe. 

But what gets lost is that Bill Gates was the first internet revolution. 
Just before the internet - essentially a set of standards - emerged. But it 
only came along because Bill had created a networks and user-points 
revolution on the ground. Also I with the Bill and Melinda 
foundationhooking up with the other good-guy of the billionaire set, 
forget his name temporarily, they are a role model for the rest of them. 
Which even if ignored as currently...at lest they have tried.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:13:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
  Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom 
 later. 
  
  
  On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: 
  
   On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 

Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
 going by 
   a 
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
   processors 
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, 
 i.e. 
they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But 
 the 
density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
 predicted 
amount (or so I'm told). 

   
   Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
   transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
 that 
   has 
   been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core 
 chips 
   now on the market). 
   
   But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
   time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
   (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
   '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
   magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
   years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
   following purchases were made*: 
   
   1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
   1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
   2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
   2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
   2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
   
   * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
 facts 
   
   Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
   function of year. 
   

 Incidently, the kink at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
 systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
 purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
 colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
 flatter! 

 Cheers 

 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)


 it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
 which they do with you - my window anyway


p.s. say I am 99% sure is obvious, but due to some minor local 
self-esteem issues and the other local matter of a one-to-many rearguard 
action, I shall have to cave in and add in a very positive direction

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


   A lot is understood about intelligence in humans


Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we
could double our IQ  by knowing which modes of thought are productive and
which just waste time and lead nowhere.


  we can do things like make a list of life outcomes that are most
 strongly tied in with intelligence


And if a machine can obtain more of those outcomes than I can then the
machine is smarter than me.

 you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness.


Yes, that's why so many people on this list have a consciousness theory but
not one has a intelligence theory. There is no easier job in the world than
being a consciousness theorist because any theory works about as well as
any other, and even if you happen to stumble upon the correct one there is
no way to know that you have. On the other hand there is no harder job in
the world than being a intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to
stumble upon the correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly
become the world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your
theory is on the right track.


  humans can learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say
 whether these correlations are about learning skills or intelligence.


More pathetic sore looser rationalizations, you didn't win because you're
smarter than me, you're just more skilful. And so it came to pass that
after outmaneuvering 8 billion people the last surviving member of the
species Homo Sapiens turned to the Jupiter Brain 4 seconds before the
Godlike computer sent it into oblivion forever and said nevertheless I
still think I'm *really* smarter than you.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread meekerdb


On 6/14/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com 
wrote:

  A lot is understood about intelligence in humans


Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we could double our 
IQ  by knowing which modes of thought are productive and which just waste time and lead 
nowhere.


As a species we've probably multiplied our intelligence many times over, first by 
inventing language, then writing, then mathematics, and more recently computers.


Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread Kim Jones




 On 15 Jun 2014, at 2:34 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the correct 
 intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the world's first 
 trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the right track.

That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is 
the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the 
car is driven. He may have come up to the level of a trillionaire at some point 
but he did at one point own 4 islands, one of them off the coast of Venice and 
a castle or two in France as well as seeding organisations in over 34 countries 
devoted to teaching thinking ability. He appears on a list of 250 people who 
have contributed the most to humanity and NASA named an asteroid after him. 

Now comes the sad part. He had a lousy marriage and had to sell off those 
islands to finance his divorce settlement. So much for thinking ability. Just 
the same, I don't see too many people making the necessary distinction between 
perception (seeing with the mind and the emotions/values) and thinking (data 
crunching and survival strategies) People on this list routinely argue about 
different things, thinking they are arguing about the same thing. That's 
perception. De Bono also understood Gödelian Incompleteness; in the 1970s he 
said that the choice of premises in any argument or discussion is arbitrary and 
that the outcome of most discussions is determined by the starting point or 
premises, so it hardly matters what happens in between.

A big part of intelligence is indeed knowing how to choose modes of thinking as 
John says, and the biggest enemy of clear, effective thinking is confusion. 
Confusion in thinking is where we try to do everything at once which is 
impossible. The neurotransmitters governing the different modes of thinking 
cannot all be optimised in the same direction simultaneously. So, De Bono 
devised the Six Thinking Hats to force people to literally do one thing at a 
time. Each coloured hat represents a particular mode of thinking: Red for 
feelings, gut intuitions, White for facts and observations, Yellow for the 
benefits, Black for the logical negative, Green for creativity and seeking the 
alternatives (so-called Lateral Thinking) and the Blue Hat is for 
metacognition or the broad overview of the thinking process. This was based on 
the neuroscience insight of the early 80s that a reasonably normal human has 
about seven slots that comprise their thinking capacity that can be filled. 
So, De Bono surmised that we would do better then to back-off by maybe one slot 
to ensure brains don't go into meltdown so there are only six hats, not seven. 
If you or your kid have not had this unbelievably simple yet incredibly 
effective and powerful routine run past them at school yet, then you aren't 
getting value for money for your school fees.

Kim 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread Pierz



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:

 On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 
 javascript: wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
 mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was 
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm 
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
 the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
 it.
 

 It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


 Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a 
 comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors 
 haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e. 
 they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the 
 density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted 
 amount (or so I'm told).


No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing 
serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers 
have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this 
can't continue indefinitely. However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we 
require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat 
expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of 
course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the 
massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing 
anyway. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve 
human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's 
an article of faith that all that is required is a programming 
breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is 
fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be 
convinced that we have any understanding of that yet. I am familiar of 
course with all the arguments on this subject, including Bruno's theory 
about unprovable true statements etc, but in the end I remain unconvinced. 
For instance I would ask how we would torture an artificial consciousness 
(if we were cruel enough to want to)? How would we induce pain or pleasure? 
Sure we can reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some kind 
of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and knows 
what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how 
incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain). 
Anyway. Old hat I guess. My point is it comes down to a bet, as Bruno 
likes to say. An statement of faith. At least Bruno admits it is such. As 
things stand, given the current state of AI, I'd bet the other way. 
 

  
 However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
 computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
 breakthrough is still required.

 Yes, you have to know how people do it.
  

Quote from ... someone: If the brain were so simple we could understand 
it, we'd be so simple we couldn't. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 06:34:51PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
 
 No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing 
 serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers 
 have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this 
 can't continue indefinitely. 

Hmm we're hitting limits to what can be achieved with 2D lithographic
processes on silicon, although exotic negative refractive index
materials may well allow lithographic techniques to be scaled to much
smaller than the wavelength of UV. This means there will probably be a
bump in store for Moore's law shortly. But we're still a long way
from fundemental physics limitations.

Where to from here? Probably the most obvious is the move to 3D. But
that direction will bump into thermal limits pretty soon, as a 3D object
tends lower surface to volume ratios. So the answer will probably need
to involve exotic materials - maybe Gallium, or maybe the memristor
stuff HP is working on. Or organic transitors. There's any number of
ideas in the research lab, that might be the successor to current VLSI
technology. 


However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we 
 require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat 
 expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of 
 course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the 
 massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing 
 anyway. 

Most of the machine learning algorithms (our most succesful AI
algorithms) are quite parallel as it is. Do you really think the learning
algorithm behind Google's language translation tool runs as a single
process task?

And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve 
 human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's 
 an article of faith that all that is required is a programming 
 breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is 
 fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be 
 convinced that we have any understanding of that yet.

There is a simpler task that doesn't involve qualia (unless you happen
to be a creationist). Create a creative evolutionary system that
mimics biological evolution in continuously creating new solutions to problems.

I suspect that once that problem is understood, the step to genuine
AGI will be rather short. Of course, we'll probably still be arguing
over whether those AGIs are conscious or not, but as Brent notes,
maybe that particular question will then become uninteresting...


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread LizR

On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sure we can reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some
 kind of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and
 knows what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how
 incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain).

 You could scrub the floor of your Chinese Room with some really abrasive
bleach, that would teach it a thing or two.

And then polish it with a soft duster...

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread LizR

On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 Quote from ... someone: If the brain were so simple we could understand
 it, we'd be so simple we couldn't.

 Excellent!

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread Pierz

Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It is 
perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of 
pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to 
wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they appear to be 
legitimate, spontaneous answers. But intelligence consists in the invention 
of those responses. This is always the problem with computer programs, at 
least as they exist today: they really just crystallize acts of human 
intelligence into strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which 
are arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend on 
this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and strategic 
heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that the computer 
could never have arrived at itself. As humans we resemble computers to the 
extent that we have automated our behaviour - when we regurgitate a good 
how are you? in response to a social enquiry as to how we are we are 
fundamentally behaving like Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation 
or any other form of novel problem solving, we don't seem very 
computer-like at all, the point that Craig makes (ad nauseam). 

On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
 doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
 the first place? 


 My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?

  Has there ever been a robust set of standards?


 No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of 
 intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the 
 same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can 
 turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only 
 tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the 
 Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but 
 pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong 
 judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.

 By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully emulate 
 the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and those 
 that are dead. 

John K Clark





-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to
pass the Turing Test for real - but that's the point, I suppose. You
can't expect to write a programme to pass the TT until you've written one
that can do tiny bits of cleverness, and then another one that uses those
tiny bits to be a bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way
that SF writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost
human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process would
have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental.



On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with
 our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It
 is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of
 pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to
 wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they appear to be
 legitimate, spontaneous answers. But intelligence consists in the invention
 of those responses. This is always the problem with computer programs, at
 least as they exist today: they really just crystallize acts of human
 intelligence into strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which
 are arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend on
 this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and strategic
 heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that the computer
 could never have arrived at itself. As humans we resemble computers to the
 extent that we have automated our behaviour - when we regurgitate a good
 how are you? in response to a social enquiry as to how we are we are
 fundamentally behaving like Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation
 or any other form of novel problem solving, we don't seem very
 computer-like at all, the point that Craig makes (ad nauseam).

 On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would
 be doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed
 in the first place?


 My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?

  Has there ever been a robust set of standards?


 No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of
 intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the
 same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can
 turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only
 tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the
 Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but
 pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong
 judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.

 By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully
 emulate the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and
 those that are dead.

John K Clark



  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

or even hugely.


On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
 called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
 think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
 seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to
 pass the Turing Test for real - but that's the point, I suppose. You
 can't expect to write a programme to pass the TT until you've written one
 that can do tiny bits of cleverness, and then another one that uses those
 tiny bits to be a bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way
 that SF writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost
 human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process would
 have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental.



 On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with
 our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It
 is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of
 pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to
 wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they appear to be
 legitimate, spontaneous answers. But intelligence consists in the invention
 of those responses. This is always the problem with computer programs, at
 least as they exist today: they really just crystallize acts of human
 intelligence into strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which
 are arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend on
 this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and strategic
 heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that the computer
 could never have arrived at itself. As humans we resemble computers to the
 extent that we have automated our behaviour - when we regurgitate a good
 how are you? in response to a social enquiry as to how we are we are
 fundamentally behaving like Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation
 or any other form of novel problem solving, we don't seem very
 computer-like at all, the point that Craig makes (ad nauseam).

 On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would
 be doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed
 in the first place?


 My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?

  Has there ever been a robust set of standards?


 No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of
 intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the
 same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can
 turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only
 tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the
 Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but
 pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong
 judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.

 By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully
 emulate the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and
 those that are dead.

John K Clark



  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread Pierz

Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any sophisticated 
piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing 
list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly 
incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement 
involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of 
increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. 
And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty 
much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised 
intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing, 
and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm still 
agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous 
failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however consider 
the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear 
Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of the 
century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the 
computational power required for human intelligence is already present in a 
modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I 
think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it. 

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:07:56 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:

 or even hugely.


 On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be 
 called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I 
 think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it 
 seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to 
 pass the Turing Test for real - but that's the point, I suppose. You 
 can't expect to write a programme to pass the TT until you've written one 
 that can do tiny bits of cleverness, and then another one that uses those 
 tiny bits to be a bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way 
 that SF writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost 
 human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process would 
 have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental.



 On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with 
 our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It 
 is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of 
 pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to 
 wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they appear to be 
 legitimate, spontaneous answers. But intelligence consists in the invention 
 of those responses. This is always the problem with computer programs, at 
 least as they exist today: they really just crystallize acts of human 
 intelligence into strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which 
 are arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend on 
 this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and strategic 
 heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that the computer 
 could never have arrived at itself. As humans we resemble computers to the 
 extent that we have automated our behaviour - when we regurgitate a good 
 how are you? in response to a social enquiry as to how we are we are 
 fundamentally behaving like Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation 
 or any other form of novel problem solving, we don't seem very 
 computer-like at all, the point that Craig makes (ad nauseam). 

 On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would 
 be doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed 
 in the first place? 


 My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?

  Has there ever been a robust set of standards?


 No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of 
 intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the 
 same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans 
 can 
 turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the 
 only 
 tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the 
 Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but 
 pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong 
 judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.

 By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully 
 emulate the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma 
 and 
 those that are dead. 

John K Clark



  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
 Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any sophisticated 
 piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing 
 list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly 
 incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement 
 involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of 
 increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. 
 And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty 
 much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised 
 intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing, 
 and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm still 
 agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous 
 failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however consider 
 the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear 
 Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of the 
 century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the 
 computational power required for human intelligence is already present in a 
 modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I 
 think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it. 
 

It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.

However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
breakthrough is still required. 

Cheers
-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread Terren Suydam

An intuition pump I use to think about the level of effort required to
achieve true AI is that it takes a human brain at least a year or two of
continuous training before it results in a talking human. Several more
years before you get to to the point where you can't easily trick that
little human into believing just about anything.

Even if we're talking about an AI whose principle workings are not inspired
by biological brains, I still think this is a useful measuring stick, for
what it suggests about the amount of organization that must occur - however
it occurs - to enable a computing device to respond in a generally
intelligent way to its given environment.

Terren


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of
 the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.
 

 It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.

 However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
 computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
 breakthrough is still required.

 Cheers
 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 13 Jun 2014, at 10:44, Pierz wrote:

Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any  
sophisticated piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even  
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already  
hugely mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over decades of  
incremental improvement involving thousands upon thousands of  
workers building up layers of increasing abstraction from the  
unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. And yet Siri, far from  
being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty much dumb as dog- 
shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised intelligence  
built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing, and  
she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm  
still agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this  
conspicuous failure represents evidence against computationalism. I  
do however consider the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch  
(and even our own dear Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains  
or something by the end of the century or sooner to be deluded.  
Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the computational power required for  
human intelligence is already present in a modern laptop; we just  
haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I think that is  
preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.



I think we had the programming breakthrough, by discovering the  
universal machine, and I begin to think she is already conscious and  
intelligent (perhaps even maximally).


Perhaps even Löbianity is already part of the fall. I take Löbian  
machines, like PA or ZF, as conscious as you and me. (yet more  
dissociated with respect to our local reality).


Uploading our mind might take one or two centuries, by  
nanotechnologies, but this does not mean we will understand our mind.  
Copying is just infinitely more easy than understanding.  Not all  
people will bet on the same level, also.


Bruno






On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:07:56 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
or even hugely.


On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might  
be called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's  
books. (I think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he  
described it, it seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere  
near the level needed to pass the Turing Test for real - but  
that's the point, I suppose. You can't expect to write a programme  
to pass the TT until you've written one that can do tiny bits of  
cleverness, and then another one that uses those tiny bits to be a  
bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way that SF  
writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost  
human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process  
would have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental.




On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem  
with our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such  
'tests'. It is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just  
has some bunch of pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the  
programmers have tried to wire these responses up to questions in  
such a way that they appear to be legitimate, spontaneous answers.  
But intelligence consists in the invention of those responses. This  
is always the problem with computer programs, at least as they exist  
today: they really just crystallize acts of human intelligence into  
strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which are  
arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend  
on this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and  
strategic heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that  
the computer could never have arrived at itself. As humans we  
resemble computers to the extent that we have automated our  
behaviour - when we regurgitate a good how are you? in response to  
a social enquiry as to how we are we are fundamentally behaving like  
Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation or any other form of  
novel problem solving, we don't seem very computer-like at all, the  
point that Craig makes (ad nauseam).


On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me  
would be doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit  
standards existed in the first place?


My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?

 Has there ever been a robust set of standards?

No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of  
intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you  
use the same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is  
imperfect, humans can turn out to be smarter or dumber than  
originally thought, but it's the

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

  The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
 current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.


If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of
intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's
just as severe in determining the intelligence of our fellow humans.

 It is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some
 bunch of pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have
 tried to wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they
 appear to be legitimate, spontaneous answers.


True, and that's why Eliza is a joke.
Why do you think Eliza is a joke?
Because unlike a AI program like Watson, which could actually help you
write a PHD dissertation, Eliza knows nothing and just repeats the input in
a slightly modified way.
Why do you say Eliza knows nothing and just repeats the input in a slightly
modified way?
Because Eliza is an idiot.
That's interesting, tell me more.
Flapjacks restrict tubular doghouses in the genome of spacetime.
Why do you think flapjacks restrict tubular doghouses in the genome of
spacetime?
And unlike Watson when Eliza gets stuck it keeps changing the subject to
avoid looking stupid.
Tell me about your mother.


  Even chess programs, which are arguably the closest thing we have to
 computer intelligence, depend on this crystallized intelligence, because
 the pruning rules and strategic heuristics they rely upon draw on deep
 human insights


That's a classic example of the sore loser syndrome, those humans with
their deep human insights will get clobbered by the computer in just a
few moves. And I don't want to hear about how that doesn't count because of
blah blah and all the machine is really doing is blah and blah, because at
the end of the day the machine won and the human lost. It may be true that
the computer solved the chess problem differently than the human did, but
given that the human lost it's rather silly to say that the human way was
better.

 that the computer could never have arrived at itself.


And human beings could never design new computer chips by themselves
without the help of computers that already exist, it's just too
complicated. And the same is true of software; imagine if you had to write
a new modern operating system from scratch but couldn't use C or C++ or
assembly language or even hexadecimal and had to write it directly in
machine code using nothing but lots and lots of ones and zeros! When the
very first computers were made there was no choice, that's the only way it
could be done, but programs were vastly smaller and simpler than now, today
even a army of geniuses couldn't do it without computers.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread meekerdb


On 6/13/2014 12:49 AM, LizR wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be called an 
intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I think it designed fonts 
or something?) At least as he described it, it seemed to be doing something clever, but 
nowhere near the level needed to pass the Turing Test for real - but that's the point, 
I suppose. You can't expect to write a programme to pass the TT until you've written one 
that can do tiny bits of cleverness, and then another one that uses those tiny bits to 
be a bit more clever, and so on.


Or implement a good learning program and then take twenty years to train it.

Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread meekerdb


On 6/13/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
That's a classic example of the sore loser syndrome, those humans with their deep human 
insights will get clobbered by the computer in just a few moves. And I don't want to 
hear about how that doesn't count because of blah blah and all the machine is really 
doing is blah and blah, because at the end of the day the machine won and the human 
lost. It may be true that the computer solved the chess problem differently than the 
human did, but given that the human lost it's rather silly to say that the human way was 
better.


And interestingly neither the human nor the computer can actually say how they 
did it.

Brent

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread ghibbsa



On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
 doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
 the first place? 


 My answer is no. So am I a human or a computer?


Well the engagement's OFF if you're human. It's off anyway because I'm not 
really a woman. 

Sorry...wrong list. k
I'd be interested in the highlights of why you think no. I obviously am 
aware of plenty of literal reading instances of 'no'. But they are all 
cases of being 'beside' the point. Not everything is suitable to be left 
generic. A detailed test won't in the tray of what is.  

It seems to me one doesn't have to envisage very far down the path of 
what designing a proper test would entail to fairly sure the task itself 
would be extremely hard, and not necessarily possible absent some major 
theoretical work. 

Which makes the conception unviable probably for at least preceding 40 
years, since much easier, more objective and arguably more to the heart of 
the matter tests are plausibly available (also via some theory) from 
hardware/software signals

So if the way you mean 'no' is along the lines of someone had a big vision 
and so and so failed to realize the 'spirit'. A.no. Not in my view, 
because failing to do the work on the detail pretty much guarantees that 
outcome, or makes it vastly more likely. 

 . 


  Has there ever been a robust set of standards?


 No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of 
 intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the 
 same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can 
 turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only 
 tool we have for judging fthings. If the judge is a idiot then the Turing 
 Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but pretending 
 to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong judgement but 
 such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.


I'd certain concur these would be some major issues.  


 By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully emulate 
 the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and those 
 that are dead. 


Didn't know that, but was reminded something that was said about Game 
Theory...it only predicted statisticians and psychopaths. ~Don't know if 
it's true, but if it was, why the bloody hell was that a reason to stop 
using it or restrict its useful domain of usage? That was a rhetorical 
question you psycho. 

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this
humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already hugely
mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental
improvement involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up
layers of increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down
below. And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still
pretty much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing,
and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm still
agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however consider
the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of the
century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
computational power required for human intelligence is already present in a
modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.

This looks like a more realistic estimate...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of
 the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.
 

 It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.

 However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
 computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
 breakthrough is still required.

 Cheers
 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
  Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
 sophisticated
  piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
  list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
  incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
  involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
  increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
  And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still
 pretty
  much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
  intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was
 wearing,
  and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm
 still
  agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
  failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however
 consider
  the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
  Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of
 the
  century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
  computational power required for human intelligence is already present
 in a
  modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
  think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.
 

 It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
 about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
 Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the
density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted
amount (or so I'm told).


 However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
 computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
 breakthrough is still required.

 Yes, you have to know how people do it.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
 
 Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a
 comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors
 haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
 they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the
 density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted
 amount (or so I'm told).
 

Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of
transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, that has
been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips
now on the market).

But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of
time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age
(perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the
'90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of
magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5
years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the
following purchases were made*:

1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M
1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K
2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M
2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K
2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K

* subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the
  facts

Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a
function of year.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.


On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
 
  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by
 a
  comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the
 processors
  haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
  they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the
  density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted
  amount (or so I'm told).
 

 Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of
 transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, that
 has
 been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips
 now on the market).

 But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of
 time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age
 (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the
 '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of
 magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5
 years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the
 following purchases were made*:

 1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M
 1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K
 2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M
 2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K
 2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K

 * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the
   facts

 Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a
 function of year.

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
 Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
 
 
 On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
 
  On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
  
   Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by
  a
   comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the
  processors
   haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
   they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the
   density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted
   amount (or so I'm told).
  
 
  Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of
  transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, that
  has
  been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips
  now on the market).
 
  But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of
  time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age
  (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the
  '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of
  magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5
  years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the
  following purchases were made*:
 
  1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M
  1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K
  2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M
  2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K
  2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K
 
  * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the
facts
 
  Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a
  function of year.
 

Incidently, the kink at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry
systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000
purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my
colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot
flatter!

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

We all have our little kinks :)


On 14 June 2014 14:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
  Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
 
 
  On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
 
   On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
   
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago,
 going by
   a
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the
   processors
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores,
 i.e.
they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the
density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the
 predicted
amount (or so I'm told).
   
  
   Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of
   transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU,
 that
   has
   been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips
   now on the market).
  
   But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of
   time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age
   (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the
   '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of
   magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5
   years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the
   following purchases were made*:
  
   1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M
   1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K
   2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M
   2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K
   2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K
  
   * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the
 facts
  
   Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a
   function of year.
  

 Incidently, the kink at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry
 systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000
 purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my
 colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot
 flatter!

 Cheers

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-13 Thread meekerdb


On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
 Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
sophisticated
 piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
 list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
 incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
 involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
 increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
 And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty
 much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
 intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing,
 and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm 
still
 agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
 failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
consider
 the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
 Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
the
 century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
 computational power required for human intelligence is already present in 
a
 modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
 think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.


It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.


Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a comparison of 
modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors haven't increased much in 
speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more 
memory and more storage. But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased 
by the predicted amount (or so I'm told).


I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors Microsoft will devise an 
operating system to slow them down.


Brent
The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when they build vacuum 
cleaners.

--- Anon

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:41:42PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
 
 Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago,
 going by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That
 is, the processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have
 gained more cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more
 memory and more storage. But the density of the components on the
 chips hasn't increased by the predicted amount (or so I'm told).
 
 I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors
 Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
 

That was true for quite some time, but they do seem to have reversed that
trend in the last couple of releases. Win 7 seems a  little snappier
than XP, and Win 8 is reportedly even more so (though I've never used it).

Conversely, Linux appears to have become more bloated over the years,
although not as dramatically as Windows did.

Just saying - I happen to use Linux as my primary OS, and will quite
possibly remain doing so for the rest of my life.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute