RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human- level GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing as a thing - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1... Our thingy capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a creative problem like go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or hole] and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of appropriate objects. How are we able to conceive of all these forms as things? Not by any rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs. Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this: a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually, intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for roundness but for the more general quality of thingness - that is, for the compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground. [Art and Visual Perception] Even for things and objects the mathematics is inherent. There is plurality, partitioning, grouping, attributes.. interrelatedness. Is a wisp of smoke a thing, or a wave on the ocean, or a sound echoing through the mountains. Is everything one big thing? Perhaps creativity involves zeroing out from the precise definition of things in order to make their interrelatedness less restricting. Can't find a solution to those complex problems when you are stuck in all the details, you can't' rationalize your way out of the rules as there may be a non-local solution or connection that needs to be made. The young child is continuously exercising creativity as things are blobs or circles and creativity combined with trial and error rationalizes things into domains and rules... John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Ben, I radically disagree. Human intelligence involves both creativity and rationality, certainly. But rationality - and the rational systems of logic/maths and formal languages, [on which current AGI depends] - are fundamentally *opposed* to creativity and the generation of new ideas. What I intend to demonstrate in a while is that just about everything that is bad thinking from a rational POV is *good [or potentially good] thinking* from a creative POV (and vice versa). To take a small example, logical fallacies are indeed illogical and irrational - an example of rationally bad thinking. But they are potentially good thinking from a creative POV - useful skills, for example, in a political spinmeister's art. (And you and Pei use them a lot in arguing for your AGI's :)). I think this example is more about needing to apply different kinds of reasoning rules in different domains, rather than the underlying reasoning process itself being different. In the domain of classical logic, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that your premises are inconsistent, and at least one of them needs to be eliminated or at least modified. In the domain of politics, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that this may come useful as a rhetorical argument. Note that even then, you need to apply rationality in order to figure out what kinds of contradictions are effective on your intended audience, and what kinds of contradictions you'll want to avoid. You can't just go around proclaiming it is my birthday and it is not my birthday and expect people to take you seriously. It seems to me like Mike is committing the fallacy of interpreting rationality in a too narrow way, thinking it to be something like a slightly expanded version of classical formal logic. That's a common mistake (oh, what damage Gene Roddenberry did to humanity when he created the character of Spock), but a mistake nonetheless. Furthermore, this currently seems to be mostly a debate over semantics, and the appropriate meaning of labels... if both Ben and Mike took the approach advocated in http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/taboo-words.html and taboo'd both rationality and creativity, so that e.g. rationalityBen = [a process by which ideas are verified for internal consistency] creativityBen = [a process, currently not entirely understood, by which new ideas are generated] rationalityMike = [a set of techniques such as math and logic] creativityMike = well, not sure of what Mike's exact definition for creativity *would* be then, instead of sentences like the wider culture has always known that rationality and creativity are opposed (to quote Mike's earlier mail), we'd get sentences like the wider culture has always known that the set of techniques of math and logic are opposed to creativity, which would be much easier to debate. No need to keep guessing what, exactly, the other person *means* with rationality and logic... --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
Agree. As far as a system is not pure deductive, it can be creative. What usually called creative thinking often can be analyzed into a combination induction, abduction, analogy, etc, as well as deduction. When these inference are properly justified, they are rational. To treat creative and rational as opposite to each other is indeed based on a very narrow understanding of rationality and logic. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Kaj Sotala xue...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Ben, I radically disagree. Human intelligence involves both creativity and rationality, certainly. But rationality - and the rational systems of logic/maths and formal languages, [on which current AGI depends] - are fundamentally *opposed* to creativity and the generation of new ideas. What I intend to demonstrate in a while is that just about everything that is bad thinking from a rational POV is *good [or potentially good] thinking* from a creative POV (and vice versa). To take a small example, logical fallacies are indeed illogical and irrational - an example of rationally bad thinking. But they are potentially good thinking from a creative POV - useful skills, for example, in a political spinmeister's art. (And you and Pei use them a lot in arguing for your AGI's :)). I think this example is more about needing to apply different kinds of reasoning rules in different domains, rather than the underlying reasoning process itself being different. In the domain of classical logic, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that your premises are inconsistent, and at least one of them needs to be eliminated or at least modified. In the domain of politics, if you encounter a contradiction, you'll want to apply a reasoning rule saying that this may come useful as a rhetorical argument. Note that even then, you need to apply rationality in order to figure out what kinds of contradictions are effective on your intended audience, and what kinds of contradictions you'll want to avoid. You can't just go around proclaiming it is my birthday and it is not my birthday and expect people to take you seriously. It seems to me like Mike is committing the fallacy of interpreting rationality in a too narrow way, thinking it to be something like a slightly expanded version of classical formal logic. That's a common mistake (oh, what damage Gene Roddenberry did to humanity when he created the character of Spock), but a mistake nonetheless. Furthermore, this currently seems to be mostly a debate over semantics, and the appropriate meaning of labels... if both Ben and Mike took the approach advocated in http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/taboo-words.html and taboo'd both rationality and creativity, so that e.g. rationalityBen = [a process by which ideas are verified for internal consistency] creativityBen = [a process, currently not entirely understood, by which new ideas are generated] rationalityMike = [a set of techniques such as math and logic] creativityMike = well, not sure of what Mike's exact definition for creativity *would* be then, instead of sentences like the wider culture has always known that rationality and creativity are opposed (to quote Mike's earlier mail), we'd get sentences like the wider culture has always known that the set of techniques of math and logic are opposed to creativity, which would be much easier to debate. No need to keep guessing what, exactly, the other person *means* with rationality and logic... --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though *not* formal) form: rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal bricks of a building) with rationality, you reason according to predetermined blueprints (or programs) of buildings - you infer that if this is a building in such and such a style, then this brick will have to go here and that brick will have to go there - everything follows. The bricks have to go together in certain ways. The links in any chain or structure of logical reasoning are rigid. with creativity, you reason *without* precise blueprints - you can put bricks together in any way you like, subject to the constraints that they must connect with and support each other. - and you start with only a rough idea, at best, of the end result/ building you want. (Build me a skyscraper that's radically different from anything ever built), rationality in any given situation and with any given, rational problem, can have only one result.Convergent construction. creativity in any given situation and with any creative, non-rational problem, can have an infinity of results. Divergent construction. Spot the difference? Rationality says bricks build brick buildings. It follows. Creativity says puh-lease, how boring. It may be rational and necessary on one level, but it's not necessary at all on a deeper level With a possible infinity of ways to put bricks together, we can always build something radically different. http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/Christophe/Christophe_4661b649bdc87.jpg (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). You can't arrive at brick art or any art or any creative work or even the simplest form of everyday creativity by rationality/logic/deduction, induction , abduction, transduction et al. (What's the logical solution to freeing up bank lending right now? Or seducing that woman over there? Think about it.) AGI is about creativity. Building without blueprints. (Or hidden structures). Just rough ideas and outlines. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of the American Way ;-p Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans often intend as a playful obnoxiousness is interpreted by non-Americans more seriously... I think we had some mutual colleagues in the past who favored such a style of discourse ;-) ben On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation Well, I guess my English is not good enough to tell the subtle difference in tones, but his comments often sound that You AGIers are so obviously wrong that I don't even bother to understand what you are saying ... Now let me tell you I don't enjoy this tone. Pei However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them I would find it more rewarding by far to engage in discussion with someone who had Mike's same philosophy and ideas (which I disagree strongly with), but had enough technical background to actually debate the details of AGI in a meaningful way For example, Selmer Bringjord (an AI expert, not on this list) seems to share a fair number of Mike's ideas, but discussions with him are less frustrating because rather than wasting time on misunderstandings, basics and terminology, one cuts VERY QUICKLY to the deep points of conceptual disagreement ben g On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Pei Wang mail.peiw...@gmail.com wrote: BillK, Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-( I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing list. Here bad behaviors are not in the conclusions or arguments, but in the way they are presented, as well as in the politeness/rudeness toward other people. Pei On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM, BillK pha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). Pei In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to engage with the troll. Mike does not discuss anything. He states his opinions in many different ways, pretending to respond to those that waste their time talking to him. But no matter what points are raised in discussion with him, they will only be used as an excuse to produce yet another variation of his unchanged opinions. He doesn't have any technical programming or AI background, so he can't understand that type of argument. He is against the whole basis of AGI research. He believes that rationality is a dead end, a dying culture, so deep-down, rational arguments mean little to him. Don't feed the troll! (Unless you really, really, think he might say something useful to you instead of just wasting your time). BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed:
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a troll because I feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI, rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he combines A) extremely strong intuitive opinions about AGI topics with B) almost utter ignorance of the details of AGI (or standard AI), or the background knowledge needed to appreciate these details when compactly communicated This means that discussions with Mike never seem to get anywhere... and, frankly, I usually regret getting into them In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being taken advantage of. As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all the other list members. There are many types of trolls; some can be quite sophisticated. See: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102 The definitive guide to Trolls A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, searching for the truth, flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them. The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being taken advantage of. That is quite possible; it's certainly happened before... As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all the other list members. Well I decided not to make this a moderated list, and to be extremely reluctant about banning people The only ban I've instituted so far was against someone who was persistently making personal anti-Semitic attacks against other list members, a couple years back... I have sniped off-topic threads a handful of times, but by and large I guess I've decided to leave this list a free for all ... Later this year I'll likely be involved with the launch of a forum site oriented toward more structured AGI discussions... ben --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
Top posted here: Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever bricks you are using they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway you please. Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a limiting rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I want to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with bricks. John From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk] P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though *not* formal) form: rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal bricks of a building) with rationality, you reason according to predetermined blueprints (or programs) of buildings - you infer that if this is a building in such and such a style, then this brick will have to go here and that brick will have to go there - everything follows. The bricks have to go together in certain ways. The links in any chain or structure of logical reasoning are rigid. with creativity, you reason *without* precise blueprints - you can put bricks together in any way you like, subject to the constraints that they must connect with and support each other. - and you start with only a rough idea, at best, of the end result/ building you want. (Build me a skyscraper that's radically different from anything ever built), rationality in any given situation and with any given, rational problem, can have only one result.Convergent construction. creativity in any given situation and with any creative, non-rational problem, can have an infinity of results. Divergent construction. Spot the difference? Rationality says bricks build brick buildings. It follows. Creativity says puh-lease, how boring. It may be rational and necessary on one level, but it's not necessary at all on a deeper level With a possible infinity of ways to put bricks together, we can always build something radically different. http://www.cpluv.com/www/medias/Christophe/Christophe_4661b649bdc87.jpg (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational thinking. That's its strength and its weakness). You can't arrive at brick art or any art or any creative work or even the simplest form of everyday creativity by rationality/logic/deduction, induction , abduction, transduction et al. (What's the logical solution to freeing up bank lending right now? Or seducing that woman over there? Think about it.) AGI is about creativity. Building without blueprints. (Or hidden structures). Just rough ideas and outlines. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Creativity and Rationality (was: Re: Should I get a PhD?)
John:Just by defining bricks you are already applying rationalist hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract bricks have a limiting rationalist inducing structure... Maybe bricks are too rationalist, I want to use gloops to build creative things that are impossible to build with bricks. John, Smart observation, and dead right. Bricks are indeed basically rationalist. Gloops - or I would say roughly circularish blobs, like a child's - are essential for AGI. Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-level GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing as a thing - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1... Our thingy capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a creative problem like go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or hole] and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of appropriate objects. How are we able to conceive of all these forms as things? Not by any rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs. Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this: a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually, intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for roundness but for the more general quality of thingness - that is, for the compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground. [Art and Visual Perception] P.S. But to answer your criticism directly - had I not posited the bricks analogy first, one could not move on to develop a blobs/gloops analogy. The rational form is essential for defining the creative (or more creative) form. And similarly, I have realised that rationality is essential for *formally* defining creativity. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
