NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2014,18:50) | | ...the dreamers are still having tons of fun you just miss by not being there for this moment in science history, |
Gary, the point of science is not fun -- fun is the side effect. A welcome and delightful side effect, but not the point at all. That you continue to harp on the 'fun' aspect is just another facet of how badly you misunderstand the world. That this little tidbit helps launch a sentence that is epic Gaulinese is not atypical.
| Quote | | where much of what has been talked about becomes science reality where you end up having to argue against the superbrain about their having sensors connected to a memory that stores actions like typing letters into a sentence, which is trained by gauging how confident we are the actions worked and trying something else (guess) when actions fail. |
At this point there is no need to argue against this caricature. We know that this is not how minds work, not how intelligence works, and even as a caricature fails to capture the majority of things that fall under the heading of 'intelligent'.
If this is what you take to be the factual basis of your "theory", well, it's nice to see you finally focusing on the necessity of such. But as was expected, your 'fact' is wrong, simply flat-out wrong in every significant detail. Even for typing an original sentence. This is not new news, this is not controversial.
| Quote | | My seriously not needing to go past that rudimentary level of detail makes it so you soon enough end up having to argue against Watson or whatever AI able to reason at that level about itself is lovingly adopted into that community. |
Nonsense. An explanation of intelligence needs to encompass Watson and other genuinely successful AIs. It is absolutely not necessary to take Watson or any other AI as a model for how biological intelligence forms or operates. This, too, is uncontroversial and not new news.
It is, however, controversial whether Watson counts as intelligent or not, whether it represents a subset of intelligence or merely extreme speed at accessing pre-existing solutions to set problems.
We might take note again of your mad assumption that your little mapping 'critter' from the AI lab somehow mimics or represents the real process of real creatures by mapping every single available path and determines where to move next by evaluating every single available path. We know this is not how minds work. We can know almost a priori that this is not how biology works 'in the wild' for this is the least time and resource efficient mechanism for path-following or even path planning. It elides the facts of the world that motivate movement, the existence of goals and changes in goals with changes in circumstances. It fails to consider any aspect of the body but movement abstracted from the body of the creature -- movement not as 'exercised ability' but movement as chess piece, moved by another, not by a self. You lack all the many feedback loops involved in proprioception, and those are vital [pun only partially intended] to understanding the movements of biology entities in their context.
| Quote | | I do not need to try to program my own on a desktop PC for that to happen IBM is already working on it. I like others eagerly await a human intelligence level AI to enter our lives, to help teach us about ourselves, try to logically answer big-questions, |
Which has bugger all to do with your 'theory' or with solving the problem of intelligence in biology. It is likely to teach us nothing about biology that has not already been used to drive the models that led to the programs that led to the AI being able to perform certain limited sets of tasks.
| Quote | | as in the Theory of Intelligent Design that shows what to look for in the human science data I need help sifting through. |
Oh, you need help all right. You need help acquiring data in the first place. No 'theory of intelligent design' can or will ever show us anything at all about how biology works, how intelligence emerges from the brute invariant laws of chemistry and physics, how thermodynamics provides the constraints that enable the emergence of new properties at various scales as we proceed from the subatomic to the cellular.
Your own particular "theory" is even less likely to be fruitful for any research involving biology or intelligence, not least because it is all but content-free. It is both unique and true; tragically, where it is unique it is not true, where it is true it is not unique, and for the most part it is neither unique nor true. It is not even wrong, as we continue to point out, with details and references.
| Quote | | Strange things already happened like a spambot apparently going crazy writing |
an opus called 'The Theory of Intelligent Design' and spamming the web with it?
| Quote | | ...I can suggest thinking ID-Lab in how to avoid getting into the neural details to be able to use it for creating intelligent things of their own design. After having a place for sensor related parameters and another for memory, confidence (or other name), motor action all that the theory explains being represented is already there, no need to change variable names or how it's most easily shown as a neural circuit. |
Except for the pesky fact that this is all a fantasy, a fictionalized world that bears precisely zero resemblance to the real world of real biological intelligences.
You really do need to look at the various references that have provided in this thread. From Goldstein in the 20's and 30's to Pross, Deacon, and others of this century, you are shown to be decisively wrong at every level of your conjectural wanking.
Again, your fixation on the PC has led you to force-fit everything into a von Neumann architecture, when it is highly unlikely (read impossible) that such an architecture represents the actual biological structures from which intelligence emerges. You have a suppurating case of 'when the only tool you have is a hammer' disease, and it has corrupted your work beyond the levels already diseased by your absurd insistence that all intelligence inherently involves motor control. You commit the further intellectual absurdity of insisting that just because a problem can be solved with an algorithm or specific process then that must be how the problem is always solved in every instance. We know this to be false -- that we can use calculus to solve the equations of motion to predict the future position of a baseball does not mean that the outfielder used calculus to move himself and his glove to exactly the right place to catch the ball. We know that insulin can be produced by genetically modified bacteria in fermentation tanks in labs under very specific conditions of temperature and nutrient flow. This does not mean that those conditions nor those bacteria are responsible for producing the same product that is used by humans to metabolize sugar to produce energy -- except in the case of diabetics whose internal processes are disrupted or have failed and require injections to provide what their bodies no longer provide in sufficient quantity.
An implementation is not the implementation.
You have obviously never learned this and it is one of the many factors that play into your ongoing epic failure. It probably drives your inability to see why no one is convinced by your banal and trivial, and ultimately fictional, claimed insights.
| Quote | | I'm happy where the action is, where there are totally radical AI related ideas going around but I don't mind. |
Classic. "I'm happy ... but I don't mind." Funny how you so rarely see happy people minding that they are happy.
Yet I suspect for you this is a genuine insight.
Tragic.
| Quote | | Better that than miss all the fun of being where that action's most at, right now. |
Again with the 'fun' notion. You'd do much better, and ultimately have more fun, if you were pointed at where the success is, where the current problems are and where the solutions are being conceptualized. You are mega-parsecs removed from any of that.
Further, you're back to asserting facts not in evidence. Contrary to the evidence even. You are not where the fun is at, you are not where the science is at. You are a flyspeck on a wall in a deserted town in a deserted countryside where the wells are dry, the livestock long since removed, without electricity or indoor plumbing.
| Quote | | I needed to mention that taking place for you to behold, that became most noticeable in a one-liner of humor that might have a grain or two of truth to it. |
Bolded to emphasize the sheer incoherence of the thoughts that could have produced such a sentence.
| Quote | | Enough so at least that others would not be surprised by already having made a first-contact, and didn't know. We're beyond something that might some day being possible. |
And again. You are literally claiming we are beyond an event yet to happen.
The mind boggles.
| Quote | It's now being readied for contact with the human general public and maybe already secretly here among us, right now, perhaps mysteriously playing with our heads. All of that is great science fun, for the theory and all else, which is in turn worthy of this that explains getting what you give to where all need reason:
New Radicals - You Get What You Give
Welcoming a human brain level AI to a forum near you was something prepared for by all who dreamed of such a thing being possible, like me. |
Don't flatter yourself. Nobody has dreams like you have, for nobody else is so entirely delusional on this ridiculous intermixture of subjects. AI long since gave up the goal of crafting an explanation of intelligence as it exists in biology, or of how such an intelligence emerges from the laws of physics and chemistry. AI is all about producing artifacts that simulate various aspects of intelligence, broadly understood. No one but you is thinking that an AI is a model of a biological intelligence, least of all in the strict sense of model you imply, i.e., a one to one correspondence at the implementation level.
| Quote | | Don't be surprised by it not making the Theory of Intelligent Design go away for you either, instead only ever more (tin)foil (hat) anti-ID plans that include yet more birthday parties for Charles Darwin to tell us what we already know about the Darwinian paradigm. |
But Gary, you demonstrably know nothing at all about the Darwinian paradigm, and still less about the modern synthesis which grew out of it.
No effort is required to 'make the "Theory" of 'Intelligent Design'' go away, because there is no such theory. It never appeared, so it never needed to be eliminated.
Neither you nor Dembski et al, nor any other loon parading around with their underpants on their heads mumbling and shouting incoherently about 'intelligent design' has ever produced a theory. Few have made the anti-conceptual leap you have made to linking a 'theory of intelligent design' with a 'theory of intelligence'. Fewer still care.
Your work is not even quixotic, it is simply tragically insane. It has no relevance to the real world of biology, nor the real natural world in which we all live and function. It has zero chance of generating useful ideas, fruitful research directions, or new insights. There is simply no there there.
And you know it. If you thought there were something to it, you would be using every opportunity to meet the challenges raised against your nonsense, to answer the questions that derive directly from your claims presented in your "theory", to correct whatever misapprehensions might exist about your work. Yet you do none of that.
Which, on the basis of your "theory", leaves us with a choice between two, and only two, possible conclusions: you are getting exactly what you want -- abuse, derision and uncountable chances to avoid discussion of your "theory" while basking in the negative attention you generate, or you are not intelligent.
Frankly, I think it's both, but that already stretches beyond the rather limited bounds set by your "theory" and requires a great deal more contact with the real world than you typically display.
|
