Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Nick Thompson
I LOVE this, Frank. How ever did you find it amongst the ten thousand pages Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it. By the

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Grant Holland
Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining! For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory. On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Nick Thompson
f. “space”? Or was that a correction error arising from trying to write “apace”. n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
Grant writes: "On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) " I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Nick Thompson
Grant, I think I know the answer to this question, but want to make sure: What is the difference beween calling a process “stochastic”, “indeterminate”, or “random”? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Gillian Densmore
@Nick that's a fair question. On a pragmatic side not much...yet. However as I understand it (some) amount of AI was invaluable for making pretty gud guesses about frustrating issues: Like what the heck is going on with the weather. Robots and androids (so far) are better then humans at

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Frank Wimberly
The latter. I'm about to turn off autocorrect. Ironic in the context of a discussion about the benefits and dangers out AI. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Aug 8, 2017 5:28 PM, "Nick Thompson" wrote: f. “space”? Or was that a correction error

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Frank Wimberly
Nick, It's actually more like six thousand pages. However many pages thousands of rabbis can write in 600 years, more or less. Deborah found it and posted it on our refrigerator. I understand you are recovering space. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Aug 8, 2017 3:24 PM, "Nick

Re: [FRIAM] the self

2017-08-08 Thread glen ☣
OK. This is better. But you seem to have defined "unit" or "coherence", rather than "self" ... I'm reminded of Simon's "near decomposability" in The Sciences of the Artificial. To promote a unit to a self, you're going to have to include some sort of loop, like propri- or inter-oception.

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
Grant writes: "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers." Just _not_ -- general but not efficient. [My dog was demanding attention! ] From: Friam on behalf of Marcus Daniels

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Frank Wimberly
Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc. And these are just classical search methods. Feank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" wrote: > "But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search

Re: [FRIAM] the self

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
Glen writes: "I'd posit that a passable definition of "self" is the collection of parts that can't be excised without causing fundamental changes. So, the loss of things like hair, fingernails, skin cells, maybe teeth, maybe 1 kidney, 1/2 a liver, etc. preserve the unit." Gasp. Loss of

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
Frank writes: "Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc. And these are just classical search methods." Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in principle.

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Marcus Daniels
Frank writes: "My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?)." Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions also be straw-men too?

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Frank Wimberly
My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?). Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" wrote: > Frank writes: > > > "Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread glen ☣
I'm not sure how Asimov intended them. But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics. Rules are fine as far as they go. But they don't go very far. We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Grant Holland
Marcus, Good points, all. I suggest you turn to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (the "usual interpretation") for musings on your very pertinent question about "Why probabilities in the physical world". Although, I'm sure you have already looked there. Of course, the

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Frank Wimberly
Talmud: Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it. Plus 10,000 other pages. Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM,

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Pamela McCorduck
Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and other places have not seen this? And found remedies? Just for FRIAM’s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov’s Three Laws Talmudic. Sorry I

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-08 Thread Grant Holland
Pamela, I expect that they have! And I certainly hope so. I simply have not found them yet after some earnest looking. Can you please send me some references?? Right now I suspect that the heart of machine learning has the pearl, and I'm just now turning there. And I'm optimistically