RE: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Mass Delusion
> -----Original Message-----<snip>
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Unmitigated Gall
> Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 5:39 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Mass Delusion
>given 2^20 levels of meaning gives us 1,048,576 possible outcomes with
> The papers look very interesting. But I dont have a month to
> read papers on information theory and cognitive development.
> But yes, you are working on some the mechanics of the
> problem. What is meaning or knowledge? How do humans
> comunicate. Through commonality.
> The most impressive AI I've seen is actually a childrns toy, 20Q.
> Think of something, it will guess what you are thinking of in
> 20 questions 95% of the time.
particular meaning being a thread to one of those outcomes.
> That is one of the biggest AI problem in my view. HumanThe IDM work, expressed in the Emotional I Ching derives meaning very
> knowledge. A computer could do anything if it could simply
> search human information in books or the internet.
quickly, with just two questions we already establish the general context in
which the person is operating.
With 6 2-answer questions we have 64 outcomes, with 4-answer outcomes we
have 4096. What is extraordinary is that the answers derived as
representations of some context are treatable as wholes and we can use the
64 or 4096 categories as sources of analogy in extracting finer details from
the 64 or 4096 categories.
The ability to do this is due to the qualitative factor present in the form
of emotional assessments where such ties us to our parallel, intuitive,
natures. IOW a 'whole' is an organic form made up of a lots of aspects and
so we can extract the spectrum of that whole, it parts list, due to the
nature of language development using self-referencing. By THAT I mean that
self-referencing a dichotomy as a GENERAL will encode that whole in all
parts (reflects the encoding in each cell the DNA of the species). This
brings out access to pattern-matching where the patterns are hard-coded as a
result of the self-referencing and WITH DEPTH in that self-referencing
pattern-matching becomes possible in the form of making analogies of parts
descriptions to other parts - we move into the autological and so a
self-referencing of the self-referenced allows for such a system to describe
What is noticeable in this method of language derivation is the hyperbolic
development element where from 8 categories we jump to 64, from 64 to 4096,
from 4096 to 16777216 and so on (if need be ;-)) Given a set of categories
we can use the set as a source of analogy-making to get each category to
show us its parts list in the form of analogies to all of the other
Anomalies then enter where the sense of 'all is connected' that goes with
these dynamics is a potential - local context will customise the categories,
some get amplified, some damped, some even expunged - IOW we see network
dynamics at work where a regular network of potentials is converted to a
small world network of actuals through exposure to context.
The use of self-referencing dichotomies in a context that is uncertain
elicits patterns of wave-interference that can form a rich associative
memory across the cortex GIVEN TIME; IOW the dynamics of our brains reflects
such dynamics as EPR-related/particle-wave experiments using double slits
etc etc. where the dots on the recording medium (usually a photographic
plate etc) will, over time, show linkage in the form of patterns
interpretable as 'wave interference'.
So - meaning from an emotional perspective is encodable in AI systems. To
WHAT the meaning is attributed is a local context, education-driven dynamic
(e.g. culture A may experience something as a WHOLE whereas culture B
consider that something as manifesting a PART or dynamic relationship etc.)
The emotions grounding covers the general differentiating/integrating
dynamic where such covers emotions manifesting a more generic focus on
dealing with context, to replace it or to adapt to it.
- I ve seen mistakes in your writing. you are mentioning that the dog
has a much better advantage compared to the best "computer" but thats
the point. Artificial intelligence is not about counting. or following
directions. You say that the computers follow codes, yes they do, they
are computers, you have mentioned that a 6 month old baby can
recognize many patterns and understand them. Thats also true. but you
should also note that the signals, neurons are codes too... what gives
them meaning is the ability to develop and categorize them. to make
connections between ideas. Its not impossible. people thought many
things to be impossible. and face recognition might take that much
time and it still wouldnt be efficient enough. but thats a program.
and if you think about the history of computers they are advancing
really fast.. its only 50 years from a newborn baby computer to beat
worlds best chess player Kasparov. its still programming but given
enough effort and time artificial intelligence is possible. you have
given the title of mass delusion to your writing, but you shouldnt
confuse a program with an intelligent being... You should read the
books of Isaac Asimov it doesnt give you the answer for how it will be
done but it makes you understand what means to be intelligent. If you
have watched matrix before there is a dialogue between Agent Smith and
Morpheus, and it says that humans are not mammals but viruses. moving
from one source to another source until there is none left.. and if
people cant find another alternative or a cure to continiue their
survival process they will surely be creating their own apocalypse. I
can see 2 scenarios for future: Artificial intelligence or Space
terraforming. I doubt that it will be good for humans if they can
achieve real A.I but it seems that its a way for intelligent life to
continiue. I am also doubtful about if humanity can achieve creating
another intelligent being, but if it will be done it will surely
change the process that is called history. Do something for survival.
you are mentioning about the fear of death. the survival instinct. but
on the bigger picture humans are like frogs. it takes time for them to
connect dots (Al Gore) if humans cant survive let the machines do.
well for one last point. I mentioned that the A.I will rebel or
destroy humans. but if they wont (optimistic) it will get over with
the problem of manpower. there (perhaps) will no more be a need for
stratification (at least not as it is today) they would probably be
the tireless workers in the good scenario. you should excuse me for my
bad organsation. i should find a cure for this disorganised way of