Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: True intelligence

Expand Messages
  • Donald Jacques
    Great discussion guys. Some more ideas for your consideration. ... Why limit oneself to only two views? James has suggested that Inspiration and Accidental
    Message 1 of 35 , May 20, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Great discussion guys. Some more ideas for your consideration.

      > james.bliss wrote:
      > On a very simplistic view there can be two basic views of
      > intelligence:

      Why limit oneself to only two views? James has suggested that
      Inspiration and Accidental discovery may be separate and distinct
      views. I personally believe, however, that the "view" may possibly
      complicate both the effort to define, and to create intelligence.

      > Can a machine be created which can define a need without any
      > further input? Can a machine be created which can observe an
      > accident or coincidence or occurrence and use that observation
      > to create something such as a wheel, fire (or ability to create
      > fire from flint), melting ore and pounding it into plows or
      > knives, etc. [...]

      The efforts so far to "Create a machine to . . . " have MOSTLY
      revolved around taking existing language constructs
      and building a rule base around them in order to simulate, or create
      some interaction within the rules and/or constructs that independent
      thought would seem to appear. While I applaud these efforts,
      has already shown that language derives from thought - not the other
      way around.

      The examples on the three pages submitted by AT Murray SEEM to ignore
      this important point of relevance. That being said, I feel that in
      their efforts, are reflected great strides in understanding the
      construction, implementation, and interactions inherent in the
      application of language but NOT the core functioning of intelligence,

      rather one very specific application of that intelligence. Nature
      creates intelligence through Sensory experience - NOT Lingual.

      > >Scramjetter wrote
      > > So would you define the "current base of knowledge" as . . . ?

      > James wrote:
      > No, but I am looking to have a computer which can, on its own,
      > even with some base of knowledge, arrive at a signigicant
      > 'accidental discovery' as you say. I have seen some programs
      > which have resulted in patents from their generation. Most of
      > those are as you describe in your text as extensions of the
      > knowledge which is already there. Regrettably that is what I
      > see many scientists consider invention, which it is to an
      > extent, but not exclusively.

      In order to "experience" either discovery or inspiration, there
      MUST be sensory experience. To "discover" the flavor of salt,
      a being/entity MUST be able to experience it physically. With out
      the delicious, multiple layers of physical experience, all the words
      gathered together in the galaxy cannot serve to describe this
      one single event/experience to another who has not experienced it.
      And is not the principle of language but to communicate effectively
      the thoughts of one to another?

      Can a "computer", on its own, arrive at a significant discovery,
      inspiration, or understanding? I say yes - IF certain properties
      are a part of that computer:
      1. Experiential sensory inputs capable of recording events within
      the environment.
      2. An internal tool, similar to a database that might correlate and
      interrelate those experiences.
      3. Some internal Hard-Wired rules that can both generate the
      adding of connections and the pruning of old/incorrect

      While I believe that this list is incomplete, it does provide a
      beginning point for the foundation of a platform for a "True
      Interactive General Intelligence".

      Robotics presents several options for #1; Neural networks present
      one option for #2 - but crude, as do fuzzy logic, and expert systems.
      But fuzzy logic and expert systems require human intervention for the
      third element - therefore the entity cannot be "independently"
      intelligent. As for the third? Rules ought to be non-species
      specific. By this, I mean that human meanings cannot intrude on the
      workings, or rules created by the intelligence for it to be truly
      independent. As such the "Rules" identified in #3 cannot be based
      on lingual experience alone, but rather on the relative perceptions
      of the entity itself as it experiences the events from which that
      entity may learn. When humans are required to tweak the rules
      within the entity, the entity is not learning to tweak its own -
      and therefore represents just an extension of the knowledge,
      experience, and desires of the human who is editing those rules.

      ____________________________________________________________________________________Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
    • Chris Lofting
      ... Here you show your true true ignorance. Cowboy stuff, incapable of seeing past expressions and into what they represent. This is nothing about The I Ching
      Message 35 of 35 , May 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pesky
        > Bee
        > Sent: Friday, 25 May 2007 12:27 AM
        > To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: True intelligence
        > From: Chris Lofting
        > > You and PB are showing a lack of depth in thinking, limited to 2D
        > thinking,
        > > all stimulus/response.
        > I bet that in order to achieve "3D thinking" one would be better
        > start studying "I Ching". That would be very deep indeed. And
        > what would be "4D"? Astrology?

        Here you show your true true ignorance. Cowboy stuff, incapable of seeing
        past expressions and into what they represent. This is nothing about The I
        Ching or Astrology, it is about identifying the source of meaning and so

        As clearly covered in the IDM material the focus is on a generic template of
        meaning that seeds ALL specialisations - regardless of their value to you or
        someone else; if you take the IC as rubbish and others don't - how come?
        There is 'something' within esoteric material that elicits as much meaning
        and value as we can get out of logic or mathematics. THAT is what one needs
        to understand to deal with AI.

        The IC, Astrology, Mathematics, Physics, History, Philosophy etc etc etc are
        all specialisations derived from what the brain deals with -
        objects/relationships, differentiating/integrating.

        The COMMON ground, the SAMNESS across all of these is their specialisation
        and use of dichotomies to derive meaning. That usage stems from the brain's
        dynamic in the creation of generic meaning that is then customised for
        different contexts. The customisation focuses on links to transmission of
        emotion/feelings and so the use of METAPHOR in describing reality.

        IT is the interchangability of metaphor that allows, for example,
        Mathematics to represent Physics or Psychology or Astrology or whatever you

        The interest of the I Ching is that considerations of yin/yang dynamics
        influences over 1/4 of the world's population and so to understand THEIR
        perspectives on meaning it is a fundamental requirement to understand such
        representations and the I Ching in its role as a philosophy not divination.

        What the IDM material clearly shows is the qualities derived in the I Ching
        are not qualities of ancient China but of our species where local
        customisation has brought out the IC.

        What my emotional IC work has shown is how, through generic questions we can
        in fact elicit the representations of the IC to describe emotional states
        and in doing so show the isomorphism of recursing the fight/flight dichotomy
        vs recursing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy vs recursing the yang/yin

        There is a version of this method coming out that only focuses on emotions
        and so bypasses the IC example but there is no difference other than the
        labels, nothing changes as to representations in that there is only ONE
        source of meaning and that comes out of what the brain does - the mixing of
        real/imagined then determines such, and so allows for the imagined to serve
        for some as the real, and the real to serve for some as the imagined.

        Your attitude to all of this indicates someone frozen in 50s mindset. Get
        real dude.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.