Do computers need feelings?
Sergeant Malenoid
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/robotscientist/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/retailrobots/
Potroast
<malenoidathotmail....@giganews.com> wrote:
> No, but they can accomplish a lot more without them.
>
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/robotscientist/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/retailrobots/
It's not their ability to calculate that prevents computers from
having believable AI. A calculator can calculate. However a calculator
does not have the instructions for moral judgement. To have moral
judgment requires feelings (or something that simulates feelings). If
not... how can something distinguish between a desirable and
undesirable moral outcome (beyond a narrow band of instructions)
Until that algorithm is added computers will remain glorified
calculators.
Now if that ever changes, and they can demonstrate moral judgment...
then perhaps we will see a new form of government run by machines
(Maybe they'll even replace us eventually-or more probably a synthesis
might occur)
Potroast
> Until that algorithm is added computers will remain glorified calculators.
I'd like to retract that last sentence. It's too harsh an analogy that
detracts from the richness of what computers have to offer. Your links
are good examples of the kinds of things they can do that fall beyond
the scope of my trusted Texas T1-34.
Computers don't yet have intelligence (albeit programmers like to use
the term "AI") but they are still far more than "glorified
calculators" (I really regret saying that) While a computer does
calculate (using much the same transistor based logic gate technology)
there are significant conceptual differences over a basic calculator
that make a world of difference. Although the component technology
between calculators and PCs is similar- conceptually a calculator's
functionality is closer to Herman Hollerith's 19th century punch card
machine than modern computers
Putting aside some newer calculators are like small computers.... the
big difference between a computer and basic calculator is that a
computer can have its programming easily adjusted (i.e. software)
whereas a basic calculator usually is limited a small range of
hardwired tasks
Theoretically one could create something akin to a calculator that
does everything a computer does but creating a distinct piece of
hardware for every function would be very expensive (and thus
impractical). What makes the computer fundamentally different is its
versatility. Rather than relying on dedicated hardware (or later
firmware)... software makes the task of adding functionality possible
(which is light years ahead of taking out a soldering iron every time
we want to do something new)
Les Cargill
> On Nov 5, 4:31 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Until that algorithm is added computers will remain glorified calculators.
>
> Theoretically one could create something akin to a calculator that
> does everything a computer does but creating a distinct piece of
> hardware for every function would be very expensive (and thus
> impractical).
Prior to Moore's Law, this is exactly how it was. And a computer
is nothing but a large collection of distinct controllers and
devices - they've just been made ruthlessly cheap.
> What makes the computer fundamentally different is its
> versatility. Rather than relying on dedicated hardware (or later
> firmware)... software makes the task of adding functionality possible
> (which is light years ahead of taking out a soldering iron every time
> we want to do something new)
Your basic premise... "feelings" figure prominently in human
decision making. People who have had strokes which disable the
amygdala can't make decisions any more.
--
Les Cargill
Sergeant Malenoid
news:hd2j65$tkv$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
..
..
> Your basic premise... "feelings" figure prominently in human
> decision making. People who have had strokes which disable the
> amygdala can't make decisions any more.
Or they just don�t want to.
Potroast
> Your basic premise... "feelings" figure prominently in human
> decision making. People who have had strokes which disable the
> amygdala can't make decisions any more.
It makes perfect sense. How does one make a decision without some
motivating factor? Where does that initial push or purpose come from
other than what we broadly term "feelings"? Reason is the mechanism
humans use to fulfill our purposes. Where do purposes like the urge to
live come from?
There is of course constant feedback via reason also. I might desire
that money should grow on trees (money being essentially the modern
expression of food, shelter, etc...) However, when I observe the world
I see it doesn't. Thus I become disappointed... a feeling... which
adjusts my purpose which makes me use reason to find the necessities
of life in some other way. Or perhaps I am given an education so I
don't need to check if money grows on trees and can work for it.
Again though...why do I accept that education in the first place?
Because I was spanked or rewarded as a child not because I was born
fully mature and able to rationalize why I needed an education.
Unfortunately we lack a detailed scientific description for feelings.
Which means we lack the accompanying algorithms to describe a key
aspect of human intelligence. Which means we can't write code for it.
We can create programs that simulate behaviors (e.g. we can imitate
the behavior of some types of insects or get a program to play chess)
but the big goal line is human-like AI. The problem with current AI is
that it has some reason (of the analytic variety) but it has no
motives. It can't have motives because it has no feelings. Our
approach to AI has been to provide individual motives (a task or
behavior). Unfortunately since there so many possible permutations of
tasks human intelligence must deal with trying to write them all
becomes as unwieldy as trying to write computer code with a soldering
iron.
The reason why an operating system is not intelligent is not because
it can't reason analytically but because we have to give it explicit
instructions to do something (via software) If we didn't it would just
sit them humming along doing essentially nothing for eternity. We
could (with time) create a computer that appeared intelligent by
gradually adding a massive number of programmed scenarios that gave it
appearance of intelligence (our approach at the moment) but this imo
would not be the essence of intelligence. (although that's still a
philosophical statement because for now we can't say for sure that's
not how humans work).
There is a big if here. Can feelings be described in an analytic
fashion also? Assuming the answer is yes (and I am correct about
missing feelings being the problem)..... I have a hunch that the
solution to AI is somewhere to be found in Mandelbrot's approach (of
fractal fame).
Feelings are these complex behaviors that sometimes appear almost
random. Mandelbrot saw large seemingly random shapes as the result of
very small much simpler patterns that through repetition formed into
those more complex shapes. Besides accurately describing things like
the growth of trees and forests... this approach has turned out to
have very practical applications in computer programming (e.g. the
inspiration behind modern anti-aliasing received its inspiration from
Mandelbrot as well as the polygon approach to generating 3D graphics
engines) .
The specific reason why I think a smaller description to AI will be
the "solution" (rather than just trying to program every permutation
of behavior) is because of the way human life starts off, We were all
a tiny fertilized egg at some point. Our DNA is even smaller. Putting
aside theories that the universe started off as a tiny singularity...
because of our DNA's tiny size it appears likely there are physics
limitations as to how much information our DNA is capable of
containing. Yet despite that we still ended up with our immensely
complicated bodily functions and intelligence.
So my bet is the code to write general purpose AI intelligence is
rather small. We just don't know what that algo is yet (or possibly
algos).
Les Cargill
I've not seen that conclusion drawn. I have seen the conclusion
that they cannot. Our intelligence apparently includes emotion
at a very core level.
--
Les Cargill
Potroast
And intelligence is not only connected to emotions. There appears to
be a very specific connection between emotions and moral reasoning.
Joshua Greene is on the cutting edge of essentially a new field that
is trying to bridge science and philosophy. (neurophilosophy). What
makes Mr. Greene's research unique is that he decided to examine how
moral reasoning works on a biological level. The ability to image a
living brain is a relatively new technology. Greene uses MRI while
posing all sorts of different types of moral questions to subjects.
His research while not some panacea of ultimate philosophy does gives
some concrete scientific evidence that emotions can play a role in
moral judgment. (which really is self-evident given people tend to
focus on behaviors that bring them pleasure not pain)
If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
structures. This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
We'll probably see androids at some point in this century. We are
already seeing technology like Sony's AIBO (which allowed hobbyists to
import and write their own code to create behaviors) It's only a
matter of time before that gets married to technology like Honda's
ASIMO and a ubiquitous operating system with an API is created so 3rd
parties can add software.
However, IMO (as a long time programmer) trying to code every type of
behavior is a tedious approach and not representative of real
intelligence. There will still be uncanny valleys where we'll easily
be able to spot the difference. And even if we eventually can't, Alan
Turing's test for an artificial intelligence is not a good measure of
intelligence alone. The test's focus is on whether a computer program
can fool someone for some arbitrary period of time.... not whether the
program is reasoning the way humans do. It's sort of like the
difference between a diamond and cubic zirconia. Or comparing a car to
a horse and wagon, They may appear the same on the surface or the
behavior might be similar in some respect, but on closer inspection
their are huge internal differences.
This isn't to say that the behavioral/task-oriented approach to
programming doesn't have its own rewards (which is really what the
modern computer represents) but I don't see it that intelligence as
analogous to human intelligence yet despite that the term "artificial
intelligence" is often used. I would assert to be intelligent like
humans by definition requires the intelligence have something that
mimics feelings (since that's one of the key properties of every human
brain)
Of course even we create a feeling computer the argument can be made
it is still only a golem. However, if it logically uses the exact same
principles as a human brain the question becomes much murkier. What
would make make silicon based intelligence less real than a carbon
based intelligence? Is the essence of "intelligence" the specific
material used or the mathematics behind it? Given we share much the
same genetic materials as a frog or potato... I would say the logic
rather than materials is the defining property of intelligence.
(Although this doesn't not necessarily mean that the intelligence is
"alive" which is a distinct issue)
Potroast
ASIMO and a ubiquitous operating system with an API is created (so 3rd
parties can add software).
However, IMO (as a long time programmer) trying to code every type of
behavior is a tedious approach and not representative of real
intelligence. There will still be uncanny valleys where we'll easily
be able to spot the difference. And even if we eventually can't, Alan
Turing's test for an artificial intelligence is not a good measure of
intelligence alone. The test's focus is on whether a computer program
can fool someone for some arbitrary period of time.... not whether the
program is reasoning the way humans do. It's sort of like the
difference between a diamond and cubic zirconia. Or comparing a car to
a horse and wagon, They may appear to be the same on the surface or
the
behavior might be similar in some respect, but on closer inspection
their are huge internal differences.
This isn't to say that the behavioral/task-oriented approach to
programming doesn't have its own rewards (which is really what the
modern computer represents) but I don't see that intelligence as
analogous to human intelligence yet (despite that the term "artificial
intelligence" is happenstance often used). I would assert to be
intelligent like
humans by definition requires the intelligence have something that
mimics feelings (since that's one of the key properties of every human
brain)
Of course even we create a feeling computer the argument can be made
it is still only a golem. However, if it logically uses the exact same
principles as a human brain the question becomes much murkier. What
would make silicon based intelligence less real than a carbon
based intelligence? Is the essence of "intelligence" the specific
material used or the mathematics behind it? Given we share much the
same genetic materials as a frog or potato... I would say the logic
rather than materials is the defining property of intelligence.
(Although this does not necessarily mean that the intelligence is
Les Cargill
> And intelligence is not only connected to emotions. There appears to
> be a very specific connection between emotions and moral reasoning.
>
> Joshua Greene is on the cutting edge of essentially a new field that
> is trying to bridge science and philosophy. (neurophilosophy). What
> makes Mr. Greene's research unique is that he decided to examine how
> moral reasoning works on a biological level. The ability to image a
> living brain is a relatively new technology. Greene uses MRI while
> posing all sorts of different types of moral questions to subjects.
> His research while not some panacea of ultimate philosophy does gives
> some concrete scientific evidence that emotions can play a role in
> moral judgment. (which really is self-evident given people tend to
> focus on behaviors that bring them pleasure not pain)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y8bbzw3
>
What's striking to me is that the example "trolley problem" is
clearly underpinned by the overall process of evolution. We're
anthropic-ly more likely with it than without it.
I realize he's using this to study what regions of the brain
do what - to 'reverse engineer" the brain, but the structure here
is sub-rational.
> If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
> will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
> a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
> brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
> neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
> structures. This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
> approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
> AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
>
Maybe. the problem is that holism and reduction in AI seem to
lead to fairly radically different conclusions. Even a ...
Kurweil-ian optomism "of course we want to be machines" seems
somewhat perverse. It makes a certain Luddism about this
palatable.
Ultimately, I'm pretty well convinced that Mandelbrot is
simply about data reduction, simplifying representation. It
doesn't solve the gross problem at all - the gross problem
being that adding all these maps up doesn't yield
a coherent whole. The coherence is - surprise - because
of the sheer number of iterations of evolutionary power.
We're going "nuanced", but Nature is brute force...
> We'll probably see androids at some point in this century. We are
> already seeing technology like Sony's AIBO (which allowed hobbyists to
> import and write their own code to create behaviors) It's only a
> matter of time before that gets married to technology like Honda's
> ASIMO and a ubiquitous operating system with an API is created (so 3rd
> parties can add software).
>
Maybe, but the thing seems somehow quaint, now. Cockroach-sized
embedded stuff has revolutionized industry *much* more than
any sort of AI.
> However, IMO (as a long time programmer) trying to code every type of
> behavior is a tedious approach and not representative of real
> intelligence. There will still be uncanny valleys where we'll easily
> be able to spot the difference.
Right. It goes pear-shaped in surprising ways.
> And even if we eventually can't, Alan
> Turing's test for an artificial intelligence is not a good measure of
> intelligence alone. The test's focus is on whether a computer program
> can fool someone for some arbitrary period of time.... not whether the
> program is reasoning the way humans do. It's sort of like the
> difference between a diamond and cubic zirconia. Or comparing a car to
> a horse and wagon, They may appear to be the same on the surface or
> the
> behavior might be similar in some respect, but on closer inspection
> their are huge internal differences.
>
We need to know how puns work.
> This isn't to say that the behavioral/task-oriented approach to
> programming doesn't have its own rewards (which is really what the
> modern computer represents)
Very much so - you get a long way with FSM oriented technology from
a standpoint of getting real work done. Now, that's got a "faux
linguistic" component - it's all based in the grammar calculus of
Chomsky/et al, but ... it doesn't have *meaning*. I think it also
explains his odd ability to draw parallels in politics that aren't very
robust.
> but I don't see that intelligence as
> analogous to human intelligence yet (despite that the term "artificial
> intelligence" is happenstance often used). I would assert to be
> intelligent like
> humans by definition requires the intelligence have something that
> mimics feelings (since that's one of the key properties of every human
> brain)
>
Dogs have feelings, too. Can't prove it*, but I'd be very
surprised otherwise. Birds also invite a sort of anthropomorphism
that's very seductive.
*yet.
> Of course even we create a feeling computer the argument can be made
> it is still only a golem. However, if it logically uses the exact same
> principles as a human brain the question becomes much murkier. What
> would make silicon based intelligence less real than a carbon
> based intelligence? Is the essence of "intelligence" the specific
> material used or the mathematics behind it? Given we share much the
> same genetic materials as a frog or potato... I would say the logic
> rather than materials is the defining property of intelligence.
but logic may well be a deeper structure and may be present in
non-lingual species.
> (Although this does not necessarily mean that the intelligence is
> "alive" which is a distinct issue)
i still think Issaac Asimov's "start with the ethics of the thing"
is critical. Too bad it's so poorly reflected in popular culture.
--
Les Cargill
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
> will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
> a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
> brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
> neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
> structures.
Can you provide your source of evidence for this?
I'm not a neuroscientist but I know something about
the structure of a basic (there are many types)
neuron, and it is not divisible into "smaller
repetitive structures".
> This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
> approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
> AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
??
-RKN
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
> > will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
> > a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons �And just as our
> > brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
> > neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
> > structures.
>
> Can you provide your source of evidence for this?
> I'm not a neuroscientist but I know something about
> the structure of a basic (there are many types)
> neuron, and it is not divisible into "smaller
> repetitive structures".
I'm not sure I understand your question Rod. Proteins aren't
repetitive? Dendrites aren't repetitive? DNA is not repetitive? I'm
not a neuroscientist either but it seems self-evident with even a
cursory knowledge that many parts of a neuron are essentially the same
thing repeated. This is true about practically any part of the human
body (e.g Your skin is most small cells repeated) This is precisely
why stems cells are so revolutionary because they can theoretically be
used to reproduce any other kind of human tissue. (via slight
alteration and repetition)
> �> This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
> �> approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
> �> AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
> > ??
Pulled from the above thread (with a little copy cleanup)
....
"Feelings are these complex behaviors that sometimes appear almost
random. Mandelbrot saw large seemingly random shapes as the result
of very small much simpler patterns that through repetition formed
into those more complex shapes. Besides accurately describing things
like the growth of trees and forests... this approach has turned out
to have very practical applications in computer programming (e.g.
modern anti-aliasing received its inspiration from Mandelbrot as well
as the polygon approach for generating 3D graphics)"
...
What I'm saying is that just because feelings don't appear logical
doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a precise formula behind them. I
suspect the seeming randomness of feelings is the result of repetition
of very simple analytic principles that end up forming much more
complex behavior. The reason why we aren't all clones of each other
is because from instance-to-instance we are subject to different
experiences from the environment around us (which can adjust our
behavior and apparently can even shape us on a microscopic biological
level ala phenotypes)
Going back to my polygon example.. most programmers don't care how we
generate 3D graphics (unless creating a 3D engine or some lame flash
movie) . It's essentially a black box and we just use some API or
software to draw the shape and let OpenGL or the DirectX worry about
it. In practice, what's under the hood when you see rich 3d games
graphics today (e.g. xbox) is almost always polygon based. The
reason why we use polygons (and related polygon mesh) is because the
(most popular) alternatives of Nurbs and ray tracing while excellent
for prerender film and photo realistic stills are usually
substantially slower to process. (and there is also something called
sub-division surfaces which is sort of a cross between polygons and
the beziers employed by Nurbs but its not my area of expertise). A 3D
shape generated by polygons is really just a collection of tiny
repeating polygons that create the illusion of being a complex shape
Likewise... there (now) are AI researchers out there that are taking
the same programming approach I'm described.. but towards
intelligence. Instead of trying to build some vast intelligence via
one giant complex program.... they are trying to build it from many
many tiny simple programs that interact with one another. Rather than
telling them specific complex behaviors, they observe complex
behaviors that naturally arise via their interactions (its really of
like a zoologist or biologist might) I've heard the term "neural net"
applied to describe this approach to AI sometimes. I don't know how
much research goes into specifically "feelings" (which is orders of
magnitude more complex) but it seems reasonable if someone got the
algos right feelings (or something that appears to mimic feelings)
would be a natural consequence.
Of course this is all hypothetical and just my own feel for the best
approach towards AI research. No one knows for sure yet.
Arnold Broese
news:0f79673e-a8f2-4d08...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> And intelligence is not only connected to emotions. There appears to
> be a very specific connection between emotions and moral reasoning.
The essence of living is survival, and in most animals, survival is assisted
by the pain - pleasure system. They have an automatic "moral code" of
behavior, based on pain and pleasure.
In Human terms, survival is not automatic; that is the price for having
volition - the ability to choose. A moral code, is geared towards not just
survival, but survival in the best possible way available to a human
individual as a rational being.
Since 'morality' is a guide to the values a living creature requires, one
must ask how something that is not living, can possibly relate to those
values. Our desire to live is simply the result of millions of years of
weeding out all those that didn't care to live. Emotions such as fear, or
aggression or empathy loyalty and love, are the result of survival of living
beings, and the death of the remainder.
Once volition is involved, it is possible to rationally examine the
appropriateness of our emotions. Getting back to machines and emotions,
where is the link between their artificial feelings, and the requirements of
survival of a human? In what rational way, could such a machine have what we
call a moral code?
--
Arnold
Potroast
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0f79673e-a8f2-4d08...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > And intelligence is not only connected to emotions. There appears to
> > be a very specific connection between emotions and moral reasoning.
>
> The essence of living is survival, and in most animals, survival is assisted
> by the pain - pleasure system. They have an automatic "moral code" of
> behavior, based on pain and pleasure.
Exactly. They avoid pain and seek pleasure just like us. There are odd
exceptions to the rule though (e.g. I wouldn't want to be a a male
praying mantis having sex :). There is also instinct which is
behavior that somehow became hardwired via natural selection.
> In Human terms, survival is not automatic; that is the price for having
> volition - the ability to choose.
While their methodology for choosing isn't as complex animals choose
too.
> A moral code, is geared towards not just
> survival, but survival in the best possible way available to a human
> individual as a rational being.
So what you are saying is if a principle geared towards survival
didn't appear well suited for it... you'd consider adopting a
different principle ;)
> Since 'morality' is a guide to the values a living creature requires, one
> must ask how something that is not living, can possibly relate to those
> values. Our desire to live is simply the result of millions of years of
> weeding out all those that didn't care to live.
Natural selection doesn't mean they didn't care to live. It just means
they weren't suited for live (given the conditions of the moment)
> Emotions such as fear, or
> aggression or empathy loyalty and love, are the result of survival of living
> beings, and the death of the remainder.
>
> Once volition is involved, it is possible to rationally examine the
> appropriateness of our emotions.
It's true emotions of the moment alone don't decide everything for an
intelligent being. There is interplay with reason. While I love ice
cream, I don't eat buckets of it every day because I know I'll become
unhealthy.
However, my chief motivating factor is still emotion on some level. I
don't want the unpleasantness of a shorter death. (or diabetes, or
being fat). Even cases of "fasting" are emotions at work. While it
might seem someone is denying themselves pleasure... they are doing it
because they see the promise of a greater pleasure later on ("heaven")
> Getting back to machines and emotions, where is the link between their artificial feelings, and the requirements of survival of a human?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Mal and I were briefly discussing this on another thread. I brought up
the point that artificial intelligence might potentially represent a
future form of government for man. Suppose machines became capable of
running an economy far more efficiently than men (which I believe
would require moral judgment.... which I believe in turn requires
something approximating feelings). Suppose these machines could
produce goods, technology and services that we ourselves could not
manage by ourselves. Would we chose to still run our economies or
would we hand them over to benevolent dictator machines?
> In what rational way, could such a machine have what we call a moral code?
I couldn't tell you a precise methodology but IMO (as per above) my
guess for the best approach to machine intelligence capable of a moral
code would be examining precisely how the human brain behaves on the
tiniest neurological level and duplicating the behavior with software.
(although it will probably need some senses to interact with the
"real" world too for data input since creating a virtual description
of the reality would be too tedious and incomplete)
It took humans hundreds of millions of years of evolution to get as
advanced as we are. If we want to speed up the process with silicon
based intelligence copying what's already there is probably the best
method. One of the complaint about neural nets at the moment (as
applied to AI) is that there isn't enough information of how the brain
works yet to accurately simulate it (which makes the research rather
random and somewhat fruitless beyond insect-like behavior)
Arnold Broese
>
> So what you are saying is if a principle geared towards survival
> didn't appear well suited for it... you'd consider adopting a
> different principle ;)
Of course. Reality is the decider of what is best for the desired result.
>
>> Since 'morality' is a guide to the values a living creature requires, one
>> must ask how something that is not living, can possibly relate to those
>> values. Our desire to live is simply the result of millions of years of
>> weeding out all those that didn't care to live.
>
> Natural selection doesn't mean they didn't care to live. It just means
> they weren't suited for live (given the conditions of the moment)
Both really, because you need a desire to live in the first place - the
survival instinct.
>> Getting back to machines and emotions, where is the link between their
>> artificial feelings, and the requirements of survival of a human?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> Mal and I were briefly discussing this on another thread. I brought up
> the point that artificial intelligence might potentially represent a
> future form of government for man. Suppose machines became capable of
> running an economy far more efficiently than men (which I believe
> would require moral judgment.... which I believe in turn requires
> something approximating feelings). Suppose these machines could
> produce goods, technology and services that we ourselves could not
> manage by ourselves. Would we chose to still run our economies or
> would we hand them over to benevolent dictator machines?
You are making big leaps here. We are not talking of machines of production,
but machines that can feel and make moral decisions. First you need to
consider the MEANING of morality. This is what I have been leading up to.
Tell me what you think moroality IS, if not what I am saying.
>> In what rational way, could such a machine have what we call a moral
>> code?
>
> I couldn't tell you a precise methodology but IMO (as per above) my
> guess for the best approach to machine intelligence capable of a moral
> code would be examining precisely how the human brain behaves on the
> tiniest neurological level and duplicating the behavior with software.
> (although it will probably need some senses to interact with the
> "real" world too for data input since creating a virtual description
> of the reality would be too tedious and incomplete)
I mean, how can 'morality' have a meaning to a machine, not how you would
attempt to create it. Morality is a code of values for living rational
beings. How do you propose to transpose that premise to a dead machine?
First you need to explain WHY we need a morality, and then describe what it
is. You will find that these explanations will have no applications to dead
things. Dead things don't die, so have no need for values that sustain life,
that is, morality.
In short, you make gross assumptions that there is no difference between man
and machine, just because we have certain aspects of similarity, such as the
ability to calculate.
--
Arnold
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2:33 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>>On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
>>>will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
>>>a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
>>>brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
>>>neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
>>>structures.
>>Can you provide your source of evidence for this?
>>I'm not a neuroscientist but I know something about
>>the structure of a basic (there are many types)
>>neuron, and it is not divisible into "smaller
>>repetitive structures".
> I'm not sure I understand your question Rod. Proteins aren't
> repetitive? Dendrites aren't repetitive? DNA is not repetitive?
I find it odd that you would refer to the myriad
components that constitute a thing as "smaller
repetitive structures" of the thing. Your wording
indicated - to me anyway - a misunderstanding of
the structure of a neuron, as if to say that if
you contunually divided the neuron you'd see its
structure "repeated" in the smaller pieces. Which
isn't true of a neuron, or any other cell type.
From here you segued into Mandelbrot sets, which
are self-similar on magnification, but neurons
aren't.
Or perhaps you merely meant that many *copies* of
certain biomolecules that constitute certain structural
components of a neuron are necessary to make those
components, which *is* true, and if that's what you
meant I'll move along. But I'd still consider your
verbiage quirky.
-RKN
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 2:33 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>
> >>Potroast wrote:
> >>>On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
> >>>will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
> >>>brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
> >>>neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
> >>>structures.
> >>Can you provide your source of evidence for this?
> >>I'm not a neuroscientist but I know something about
> >>the structure of a basic (there are many types)
> >>neuron, and it is not divisible into "smaller
> >>repetitive structures".
> > I'm not sure I understand your question Rod. Proteins aren't
>
> I find it odd that you would refer to the myriad
> components that constitute a thing as "smaller
> repetitive structures" of the thing. Your wording
> indicated - to me anyway - a misunderstanding of
> the structure of a neuron, as if to say that if
> you contunually divided the neuron you'd see its
> structure "repeated" in the smaller pieces. Which
> isn't true of a neuron, or any other cell type.
Judging by your own wording above, you seem to be injecting the word
identical where I said "repetitive". For example, a neuron doesn't
have a single dendrite. It has dendrites (plural). It has synapses
(plural). It has neurotransmitters.(plural). Ribosomes (plural) Even
for structures within it that don't appear repetitive (e.g. the
nucleus of neuron) ... when we go tinier they too are made up of
repetitive structures. You are looking at things from a biological
resolution. The complex shapes that make up matter are ultimately all
made of collections of repeating atoms and molecules. (but those
repetitive patterns aren't alway necessarily only limited to the
atomic world)
Where I think some semantic confusion lays between us is I see
something can be repetitive and similar without being perfectly
identical. (although something can of course be repetitive and
identical as well). I don't typically like using the word identical
for the specific reason anything can be argued different if someone
chooses to ignore the essence of a particular argument. For instance
even an atom of the same element has particles in different positions
or speed at any given moment from another atom of the same element
(which would invalidate Mandelbrot sets in nature if one took it to
the absolute definition of perfectly identical as opposed to my
similar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal#In_nature
> 嚙瘤rom here you segued into Mandelbrot sets, which
> are self-similar on magnification, but neurons
> aren't.
Neurons have been compared to Mandelbrot sets in their relationship
with other neurons. Constituent components of neurons have ALSO been
compared to Mandelbrot sets by experts in the field (so it's not just
me saying it). Where I think some confusion might lay is you think I'm
implying a single repeating structure when it might be multiple ones
working together (although I would add on super tiny scales it may
actually turn out to be a single repeating structure)
For example, a dendrite "tree" is not dissimilar to the growth pattern
of trees (thus the words "dendrite"and "tree" to describe them). Both
human tissue and trees have been compared to Mandelbrots sets (by
experts in each respective field)
"In the present study we apply fractal analysis to this unsolved
problem and calculate the fractal dimension for each dendritic arbour
of a neuron. We will hereby prove that by application of fractal
analysis to the dendritic arbours of these cells whilst ignoring other
neuronal attributes allows for clear discrimination of only three cell
types."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi嚙確0G-4PD4XHV-2&_user &_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId 85000721&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct嚙�0050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid &md5 57abc43e3fd11d222c674e9edf5fd6
http://books.google.ca/books?id=t9l9GdAt95gC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=mandelbrot+trees+living&source=bl&ots=a_pormw_Ge&sig=yFIZXYF1ETpKTt0AxOcMMHpvjA8&hl=en&ei=Hlf4SofmKIPR8QbM1LDzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved BMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mandelbrot%20trees%20living&f=false
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&ei嚙碼4SpL2AoWj8Aaf_4X0CQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved AYQBSgA&q=mandelbrot+set+dendrite+neuron&spell=1&fp=f616e92003ac2179
> Or perhaps you merely meant that many *copies* of
> certain biomolecules that constitute certain structural
> components of a neuron are necessary to make those
> components, which *is* true, and if that's what you
> meant I'll move along. But I'd still consider your
> verbiage quirky.
The designers of one of the first 3d landscape programs that used
polygons specifically credited Mandelbrot for their inspiration. The
same is true for the designers of some kinds of computer neural
networks.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sig=yFIZXYF1ETpKTt0AxOcMMHpvjA8&q=mandelbrot+set+neural+net&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&ei=_mX4SvCYCZHTlAexrf3xCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved AYQBSgA&q=mandelbrot+sets+polygons+3d+graphics&spell=1&fp=f616e92003ac2179
I continue to stand by all my points. but if you feel it could have
been worded better that's a fair enough criticism.
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:24 am, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>>Potroast wrote:
>>>On Nov 8, 2:33 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>>>>Potroast wrote:
>>>>>On Nov 7, 11:52 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding feelings
>>>>>will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
>>>>>a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
>>>>>brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
>>>>>neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
>>>>>structures.
>>>>Can you provide your source of evidence for this?
>>>>I'm not a neuroscientist but I know something about
>>>>the structure of a basic (there are many types)
>>>>neuron, and it is not divisible into "smaller
>>>>repetitive structures".
>>>I'm not sure I understand your question Rod. Proteins aren't
>>>repetitive? Dendrites aren't repetitive? DNA is not repetitive?
>>I find it odd that you would refer to the myriad
>>components that constitute a thing as "smaller
>>repetitive structures" of the thing. Your wording
>>indicated - to me anyway - a misunderstanding of
>>the structure of a neuron, as if to say that if
>>you contunually divided the neuron you'd see its
>>structure "repeated" in the smaller pieces. Which
>>isn't true of a neuron, or any other cell type.
> Judging by your own wording above, you seem to be injecting the word
> identical where I said "repetitive". For example, a neuron doesn't
> have a single dendrite. It has dendrites (plural). It has synapses
> (plural). It has neurotransmitters.(plural). Ribosomes (plural) Even
> for structures within it that don't appear repetitive (e.g. the
> nucleus of neuron) ... when we go tinier they too are made up of
> repetitive structures. You are looking at things from a biological
> resolution. The complex shapes that make up matter are ultimately all
> made of collections of repeating atoms and molecules.
Uh, right, I'm well aware of the prevailing atomic
model of matter. So on your view, since all matter
is ultimately made of atoms, therefore all matter is
constituted of "smaller repetitive structures."
Pretty quirky verbiage if you ask me.
You know what they say, "A concept which describes
everything distinguishes nothing."
-RKN
Potroast
In a sense yes! This is essentially what atomists philosophized
about. Of course atoms have turned out more complicated than first
imagined. The standard model can't account for everything so the
naming may have been premature (e.g. maybe if strings pan out they
would have been better named atoms)
Again though, that's far from the only thing I'm saying here. Patterns
can also be stacked on top of other patterns. And running with the
case of specifically fractals, while natural fractals can't really be
described as "perfectly identical"....self "similar" fractals do
exist in the natural world. This is exactly why we can create forests
that look organic and realistic using software based on simple rules.
(landscape is another great example) The list of natural shapes that
follow fractal approximations is quite extensive.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26242/full/ap/ap.html
Fractal analysis is a quite common approach for trying to determining
the shape of tiny biological structures. It's "pretty quirky
verbiage" to suggest fractals have nothing in common with neurons when
plenty of examples exist that contradict your speculative
assumption :) A Google search of the terms +"fractal analysis"
+neurons gave me more than 19,000 hits (the pluses meaning both terms
are present).
A search of +fractals +neurons returned 1.9 million hits.
.....
The general theme of my thesis is that the complexity of intelligence
is really a collection of smaller simpler rules stacked on top of one
another that both repeat (on enormous scales) and interact with one
another (as opposed to some giant super algorithm thats supposed to
account for every scenario humans encounter). This programming
approach appears logical to me since that's how our body seems to
work. We are collections of different kinds of repeating cells that
form more complex structures (e.g. a skin, a brain, a skeleton, a
lung, a heart, and finally a human).
(From my perspective) the reason why AI's currently don't
"understand" is because those smaller simple rules aren't being
followed (not that I'm saying I know what those rules are). Trying to
make a computer understand at the moment is like trying to get a frog
to understand. Frogs can't understand because some of the underlaying
simple repetitive rules are different than that of a human (which ends
up as them with the properties of frogs as opposed to humans).
Likewise... an AI will never truly understand like a human unless we
first understand our own simple repeating principles. Software today
can only mimick creativity in narrow bands of task-oriented behavior.
While we could create something that appeared intelligent using the
current approach (given enough lines of code) IMO even if one
eventually passed the Turing test with flying colours it wouldn't be
an iota more intelligent than any computer is today (in the human
sense).
Incidentally...this approach to AI isn't my own theory. Plenty of
researchers for decades have taken this avenue. It isn't popular in
mainstream programming yet for one simple reason. We usually can't get
a computer to do much useful using this method. However, the reason
why that is seems fairly evident. Even if the rules are simple, given
the number of possible mathematical permutations possible unless we
know our own set of rules first... the probability is extremely low
we'll randomly stumble upon the code for intelligence beyond very
simple tasks. (although if the horsepower of advanced quantum
computing ever arrives...we might be able to use the trial-and-error
simulation approach)
Potroast
I stated "A search of +fractals +neurons returned 1.9 million hits".
The number is roughly 1.2 million hits. (The difference isn't relevant
but it gets under my skin when I see other people post inaccurate
figures).
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:06 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
> Fractal analysis is a quite common approach for trying to determining
> the shape of tiny biological structures.
Your point was specifically about neurons, not many "tiny
biological structures".
> It's "pretty quirky
> verbiage" to suggest fractals have nothing in common with neurons when
> plenty of examples exist that contradict your speculative
> assumption :)
Not only was that *not* my assumption, I provided
no verbiage whatsoever which would suggest to any
honest reader that it was my assumption. I have nothing
to say to you about the application of fractal analysis
to the study of neurons. I can, however, tell you that
the state-of-the-art way to determine the 3D structure
(shape) of many important biomolecules is by x-ray
crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
spectroscopy.
Indeed...
> A Google search of the terms +"fractal analysis"
> +neurons gave me more than 19,000 hits (the pluses meaning both terms
> are present).
>
>
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=%2Bneuron+%2B%22fractal+analysis%22&meta=&aq=f
&oq=%2Bneuron+%2B%22fractal+analysis%22&fp=f616e92003ac2179
... looking at the abstract referred to by the first
link in this list, it appears the authors applied
fractal analysis to the study of action potential
patterns in certain neurons, *not* to model the
structure (shape) of those neurons. Do you understand
the difference? I do.
-RKN
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > It's "pretty quirky
> > verbiage" to suggest fractals have nothing in common with neurons when
> > plenty of examples exist that contradict your speculative
> > assumption :)
>
> Not only was that *not* my assumption, I provided
> no verbiage whatsoever which would suggest to any
> honest reader that it was my assumption.
I've elaborated on several aspects of neurons structure (which should
have made it clear I'm not implying that you'll find a tiny neuron
chopped up)... yet you seemed to continued to try and dismiss any
connection to fractals throughout this thread.
e.g " Your wording indicated - to me anyway - a misunderstanding of
the structure of a neuron, as if to say that if you contunually
divided the neuron you'd see its structure "repeated" in the smaller
pieces. Which
isn't true of a neuron, or any other cell type. "
e.g. "From here you segued into Mandelbrot sets, which are self-
similar on magnification, but neurons
aren't. "
e.g. " So on your view, since all matter is ultimately made of atoms,
therefore all matter is
constituted of "smaller repetitive structures. Pretty quirky verbiage
if you ask me."
e.g. "You know what they say, "A concept which describes everything
distinguishes nothing."
> I have nothing
> to say to you about the application of fractal analysis
> to the study of neurons. I can, however, tell you that
> the state-of-the-art way to determine the 3D structure
> (shape) of many important biomolecules is by x-ray
> crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
> spectroscopy.
>
> Indeed...
>
> > A Google search of the terms +"fractal analysis"
> > +neurons gave me more than 19,000 hits (the pluses meaning both terms
> > are present).
>
> http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=%2Bneuron+%2B%22fractal+analysis%22&met...
> &oq=%2Bneuron+%2B%22fractal+analysis%22&fp=f616e92003ac2179
>
> ... looking at the abstract referred to by the first
> link in this list, it appears the authors applied
> fractal analysis to the study of action potential
> patterns in certain neurons, *not* to model the
> structure (shape) of those neurons. Do you understand
> the difference? I do.
Shape alone isn't the only way I'm considering fractals here. There
are fractals to be found in all sorts of other properties (e.g
time, motion, etc...). In addition, the principle of fractals
doesn't necessarily have to be taken to an absolute. Something can
behave like a fractal for certain dimensional or period constraints
In either case... isn't the fact they are using fractal analysis
(that's explicitly used to determine repeating patterns) my whole
point here? Was I arguing how a computer chip should be "shaped"....
or was I using fractals as an argument that using simple repeating
code to build AI software makes sense because it duplicates aspects of
our brain? (and aspects of our biology in general)
And if you Google some more you'll see fractals can also be used to
determine the shape of neurons (or at least some aspects of them)
You'll find plenty of references to the shape of dendritic trees/
arbors and axon branching being compared to fractals.
"In the present study we apply fractal analysis to this unsolved
problem and calculate the fractal dimension for each dendritic arbour
of a neuron. We will hereby prove that by application of fractal
analysis to the dendritic arbours of these cells whilst ignoring other
neuronal attributes allows for clear discrimination of only three cell
types."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi�T0G-4PD4XHV-2&_user
&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId
85000721&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct�00050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid
&md5 57abc43e3fd11d222c674e9edf5fd6
"A fractal shape can be completely described by a sin-
gle parameter, df, the fractal dimension (the mass of a
fractal object inside a radius r scales as r 0. Objects in
nature are fractal over a finite range of length scales r,
typically a factor of 10 or so. Here we apply fractal
analysis to retinal neurons in vivo and in vitro.
we find that neutons are fractal objects over roughly a decade in r.
We also suggest three possible diffusion-limited pro-
cesses that could be related to the fractal shapes observed.....
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:CAJHDq1GOeMJ:polymer.bu.edu/hes/articles/csedhn90.pdf+%2Bneuron+%2B%22fractal+analysis%22+%2Bshape&cd &hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
"Yet another possibility might involve the creation of a fractal
architecture in which multiple copies of the synfire neuronal pool
arise as a result of the fractal geometry of axonal branching
(Bieberich 2002). "
http://cogprints.org/4432/1/single_neuron_theory.htm
My guess is there are probably more aspects in a neuron that are
fractal (although I cannot confirm as this isn't my area of
expertise). There are also many other aspects of our brains have also
been compared to fractals.
http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1675/)
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/51/19518.abstract
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=Brain+fractal&start &sa=N&fp=f616e92003ac2179
These concepts have been applied to existing computer neural
networks....using fractals patterned after dendrites and axons. (So
again it ain't just me saying this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network#Overview
http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Publications/Fractal-Neural-Networks.htm
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ARBHH/arbib-toc.html
Potroast
Mandelbrot and "repetitive structures" I'm not only trying to bring up
fractals. I'm just using him as an example (why I used the broader
term "repetitive structures" instead of sticking only with fractals)
There are many other ways to look at repetition other than fractals in
our biology. Humans are a collection of repeating skin, bone, and
other tissue.
Lets suppose we want to design a software heart that appears to beat
like a human. If we took the approach of just a pulsing object that
only has the appearance of a heart practical any new factors that were
introduced to test whether our heart accurately simulated a real heart-
would fail. We would be forced to code in behaviors one-by-one to
simulate reactions.
On the other hand, a heart is made up of all sorts of repeating cells.
Thus if we designed software that simulated a heart on a cellular and
physics level the simulation (if written correctly) would result in a
heart capable of beating naturally. (as well as reacting to other
stimuli as a human heart might). Behaviors wouldn't need to be
explicitly coded.
I'm applying the same concept to intelligence. Why machines can't
think well is because we are building them with superficial hearts. We
could keep adding behaviors (what we currently do) but this isn't the
way a heart works. The more sensible way (if we wish to simulate
actual intelligence rather than just mimic behaviors one-by-one) would
be to duplicate how our brain works on a microscopic level. This way
human-like behavioral tendencies would arise as a natural consequence
rather than each have to be explicitly coded.
Or at least this is the theory any how. In practice the behavioral
approach is much more practical and common because it solves immediate
problems, Over time more and more behaviors are being added to
computers so that one of these days we are probably going to have have
computers that seem intelligent. but the principles of that
"intelligence" function fundamentally differently than humans. A real
AI isn't only one that passes a Turing test but one where behaviors
aren't explicitly coded.
There are two big challenges in this approach
a. Can we create a software brain with similar structure to a human
one? This is extremely challenging but I see no reason why not
(eventually).
b. Can we define the underlaying physics accurately enough for that
brain to function like a human? This one is a wild card. Since we lack
an absolute understanding of physics perhaps our brain would never end
up completely in the range of a human-like behavior.
Ray
>
> There are two big challenges in this approach
>
> a. Can we create a software brain with similar structure to a human
> one? This is extremely challenging but I see no reason why not
> (eventually).
>
> b. Can we define the underlaying physics accurately enough for that
> brain to function like a human? This one is a wild card. Since we lack
> an absolute understanding of physics perhaps our brain would never end
> up completely in the range of a human-like behavior.
These 'challenges' will lead to the same end as neural nets and other
present day approaches to creating AI - nowhere.
The correct approach is to first discover how the mind works.
The challenge is not to duplicate the brain but to recreate the mind.
Epistemology anyone?
RoL
Potroast
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
When I say "brain" I'm not saying the computer needs to have the
physical characteristics of brain. AI software is not physical and
ultimately is intended to mimic operational not physical structure.
However, there is no way to go from a to z convincingly without first
observing, experimenting, and understanding what's physically there
(our own brains). How do we know A-is-A unless we first define A
right?
If we took only the high level behavioral approach to programming even
if we had a machine that passed the Turing test we'd still forever be
wondering if it was really "intelligent" (in the human sense). What
would distinguish it as suddenly "Intelligent" versus prior
generations that simply had less lines of code? A piece of software
that was programmed to work on micro principles similar to the
brain... that subsequently started to behave like humans do without
being instructed how to do so... would be a far more convincing
argument we understood the finer mechanisms of consciousness..
In any case, we appear to be saying much the same thing in terms of
ultimate goal despite different descriptions.
Potroast
that come equipped with sensors so they can interact and learn from
the world as humans do (cameras, microphones, laser, radar, etc... to
simulate senses). Both robots are equally capable of passing an
advanced Turing test that involves humour.
AI Eve 324.36 has an OS somewhat like today except that gradually over
centuries it accumulated so many programmed behavioral responses it
started to seem very human-like. While Eve is also capable of
creating some of its own code and demonstrating something akin to
creativity and discovery, it has built-in safety features that keep it
from inadvertently occasionally ripping someone into 8 bits. If some
desired behavior is missing or some glitch appears, a programmer is
called in to make adjustments and Eve version 324.37 is rolled out..
When Eve runs across a situation it searches its database for the
appropriate built-in function(s) to runs. When someone during our
Turing test makes a pun to test if Eve "gets it"... Eve calculates it
was intended as a joke then executes its pre-programmed "laugh"
function.
On the other hand, AI Adam's 1.0 programming is something akin to a
zoo of a nonillion small simple independent program threads that each
exist independently of one another yet also interact with their
neighbours in a fashion analytically similar to human brains. These
tiny programs live, die, and mutate using principles we've observed
our own cells to have. Adam's original programming did not have
"higher consciousness" nor any sense of larger reality. Adams
intelligence was a natural consequence that arose from its original
simple "neurological" programming rules. All other subsequent changes
to Adam's programming (when Adam "matured" into intelligence.) were
the result of Adams's experiences and evolutionary programming
reactions to outside environment... not subsequent human programming.
Adam learned when to laugh at a pun.... without having ever received
detailed programming on puns... or laugher.
So which AI would be more believable as intelligence?
IMO a Turing-like test is useful but by no means some ultimate gage of
intelligence in a vacuum. To gage intelligence also requires we first
define it in ourselves and then subsequently apply those same
principles to an AI. So what I'm saying is really not much different
than Ray saying "The correct approach is to first discover how the
mind works". I'm just adding that all else being equal during the
Turing test... Adam's code that mimicks how our own brain's function
is philosophically more believable as "intelligence" over Eve's pre-
programmed canned responses. While it would still be a
philosophically thorny issue if Adam is truly intelligent (or still
just a computer running code) Adam is loser to "Adam" than Eve is to
"Adam". (A is logically closer to A).
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> One more item I wish to make clear Rod. By originally bringing up
> Mandelbrot and "repetitive structures" I'm not only trying to bring up
> fractals. I'm just using him as an example (why I used the broader
> term "repetitive structures" instead of sticking only with fractals)
> There are many other ways to look at repetition other than fractals in
> our biology. Humans are a collection of repeating skin, bone, and
> other tissue.
And so a house is composed of "repeating structures"
(2x4s, floor tiles, doors, etc.). As I said, pretty
quirky verbiage if you ask me, but knock yourself out!
> Lets suppose we want to design a software heart that appears to beat
> like a human. If we took the approach of just a pulsing object that
> only has the appearance of a heart practical any new factors that were
> introduced to test whether our heart accurately simulated a real heart-
> would fail. We would be forced to code in behaviors one-by-one to
> simulate reactions.
>
> On the other hand, a heart is made up of all sorts of repeating cells.
A phraseology I'm quite sure would puzzle any
roomful of cardiologists!
> Thus if we designed software that simulated a heart on a cellular and
> physics level the simulation (if written correctly) would result in a
> heart capable of beating naturally. (as well as reacting to other
> stimuli as a human heart might). Behaviors wouldn't need to be
> explicitly coded.
Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
about 16 years, so please...
-RKN
Potroast
> A phraseology I'm quite sure would puzzle any roomful of cardiologists
> As I said, pretty quirky verbiage if you ask me, but knock yourself out!
Your thesis throughout this thread seems to be "quirky
verbiage" (variations of which you repeat over and over again as if I
didn't hear you the first time). I'm still waiting to hear something
about your views on AI.
For the record, I typically consciously try to keep the techno-babble
at a minimum on a philosophy forum even if discussing techie subjects.
(given this isn't poly-sci or a computer science forum right?)
> Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
> wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
> about 16 years, so please...
Gosh. You've written high tech object oriented programming code? Next
are you going to tell me you've even used singleton and mvc design
patterns too? How about any of that advanced do-while loop
technology?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The fact you think
"object oriented" is something to punctuate your statement with would
strongly suggest to most experienced developers that you have a black-
box view of computer architecture. You claim 16 years of programming
experience but I find it highly dubious that was full time as a
professional. From that one statement alone I would guess your
programming skills are junior level. (and you can try and Google your
way out of it but such a massive gaffe is going to make for a tough
sell.)
Frankly I wouldn't have cared if you didn't have any programming
experience whatsoever. I don't see AI as a programmer's problem. If
there is a solution, I suspect the algos will most likely come from
the domain of mathematics, emperical research into the mind, and
philosophy. (with computer scientists putting it all together in a
final step)
Sometimes I can justify the annoyance of some Internet stranger being
repeatedly patronizing if they at least can offer some sort of
interesting argument back. In his instance, you haven't offered any of
your views on AI whatsoever. As you can see, others can be patronizing
in response. I'd much rather stick to the topic at hand though. So do
have your own theory as to how to approach AI?
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > And intelligence is not only connected to emotions. There appears to
> > be a very specific connection between emotions and moral reasoning.
>
> > Joshua Greene is on the cutting edge of essentially a new field that
> > is trying to bridge science and philosophy. (neurophilosophy). What
> > makes Mr. Greene's research unique is that he decided to examine how
> > moral reasoning works on a biological level. The ability to image a
> > living brain is a relatively new technology. Greene uses MRI while
> > posing all sorts of different types of moral questions to subjects.
> > His research while not some panacea of ultimate philosophy does gives
> > some concrete scientific evidence that emotions can play a role in
> > moral judgment. (which really is self-evident given people tend to
> > focus on behaviors that bring them pleasure not pain)
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/y8bbzw3
>
> What's striking to me is that the example "trolley problem" is
> clearly underpinned by the overall process of evolution. We're
> anthropic-ly more likely with it than without it.
>
> I realize he's using this to study what regions of the brain
> do what - to 'reverse engineer" the brain, but the structure here
> is sub-rational.
Even if someone built something that could pass a Turing test we could
philosophize forever whether it's intelligent. On the flip side
dissecting dead brains is akin to showing someone a thousand years ago
an internal combustion engine. They wouldn't have a good
understanding what the pieces are for. Turning it on and trying to map
the pieces while in motion seems like a sensible approach.
Your point about the limitations of Mr. Greene's work is valid but in
defense of his work most pure research is fruitless at first. A
journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step as they say.
I'm sure the exact methods of doing such real-time investigation will
eventually become more sophisticated.
> > If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding
feelings
> > will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
> > a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
> > brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
> > neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
> > structures. This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
> > approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
> > AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
>
> Maybe. the problem is that holism and reduction in AI seem to
> lead to fairly radically different conclusions. Even a ...
> Kurweil-ian optomism "of course we want to be machines" seems
> somewhat perverse. It makes a certain Luddism about this
> palatable.
Lol So true. I'd rather live like the Amish than exchange my brain
for the upscale electronic version. It seems self-evident I could
replace my entire body but then that wouldn't be me would it. Normally
I don't take the views of anyone that describes themselves as a
futurist too seriously. In Kurzweil's case he has an impressive resume
and track record so I write off the occasional silly theory as
eccentricity.
> Maybe, but the thing seems somehow quaint, now. Cockroach-sized
> embedded stuff has revolutionized industry *much* more than
> any sort of AI.
The funny thing about that is despite all the hullabaloo about AI...
it might be the anti-thesis of seful. (if it decides it wants to be
our evolutionary replacement: :(
> > This isn't to say that the behavioral/task-oriented approach to
> > programming doesn't have its own rewards (which is really what the
> > modern computer represents)
>
> Very much so - you get a long way with FSM oriented technology from
> a standpoint of getting real work done.
Out of curiosity are you an electrical engineer or computer science
major Les? (seeing as most have never heard of fsm yet you understood
perfectly what I'm referencing)
> Now, that's got a "faux
> linguistic" component - it's all based in the grammar calculus of
> Chomsky/et al, but ... it doesn't have *meaning*.
Can you rephrase. I can't follow your line of thinking here. (I know
next to nothing about grammar calculus)
Asimov. The robot prophet. Love that guy. It's amazing how his three
laws could generate so many ethical conundrums and philosophical
observations, (not to mention how the 3 laws are a good base in
practical design). While he wrote mostly fiction, his robot short
stories are essential reading for anyone interested in AI.
I'm a career programmer but alas mostly mundane projects nothing fancy
like AI. Working on a back end business rules for a complex warranty
validation application is as close as I've ever come. Part of the
design tried to anticipate certain kinds of fraud (to flag the
suspicious warranty request for further examination by humans) AI
still fascinates me though. It isn't just about the technology. I see
it as the ultimate philosophy bullshit detector. If someone can't
program the ethics, then they aren't purely analytical. They are just
occasionally shifting around the rules to make it seem that way. The
unknown underlaying subconscious principles they shift their own
alleged rules by is more concrete. (this fudge factor applies to me
too of course)
Mark N
> On Nov 8, 2:22 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Very much so - you get a long way with FSM oriented technology from
>>a standpoint of getting real work done.
>
> Out of curiosity are you an electrical engineer or computer science
> major Les? (seeing as most have never heard of fsm yet you understood
> perfectly what I'm referencing)
I thought everyone knew about FSM!
Mark
Potroast
:)
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>>A phraseology I'm quite sure would puzzle any roomful of cardiologists
>>As I said, pretty quirky verbiage if you ask me, but knock yourself out!
> Your thesis throughout this thread seems to be "quirky
> verbiage" (variations of which you repeat over and over again as if I
> didn't hear you the first time).
It doesn't rise to thesis, it was merely an observation
of quirky useage with respect to composition. Although
accurate, it wasn't really a very important observation.
> I'm still waiting to hear something
> about your views on AI.
I already told you up-thread that I have nothing
to say to you about fractal analysis of neurons,
or for that matter anything about AI. If I want
to learn more about that, I'll either talk to
people or read books by people who I think know
more about it than you.
> For the record, I typically consciously try to keep the techno-babble
> at a minimum on a philosophy forum even if discussing techie subjects.
> (given this isn't poly-sci or a computer science forum right?)
Doesn't make any difference to me. People with
widely variable experience on a whole range of
topics have been discussing things on this ng
for as long as I've been reading and posting to
it (ca. late 90s). If I understand something and
am interested, I read and/or respond to it, if
not I ignore it.
>>Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
>>wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
>>about 16 years, so please...
> Gosh. You've written high tech object oriented programming code?
High tech is relative, but yes, I have.
> Next
> are you going to tell me you've even used singleton and mvc design
> patterns too?
I've implemented many design patterns; Singleton
not so much, model-view-controller quite a lot.
Mediator, Observer-Listener, & Object Pool come
to mind as well. Why would this surprise you?
> How about any of that advanced do-while loop
> technology?
How old are you? I'm going to wager that I had a
few tens of thousands of lines of production code
running while you were still spitting up milk.
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The fact you think
> "object oriented" is something to punctuate your statement with would
> strongly suggest to most experienced developers that you have a black-
> box view of computer architecture. You claim 16 years of programming
> experience but I find it highly dubious that was full time as a
> professional. From that one statement alone I would guess your
> programming skills are junior level. (and you can try and Google your
> way out of it but such a massive gaffe is going to make for a tough
> sell.)
Don't need to "google my way out it".
I received my bachelors in geology in '83, a masters in
geophysics in '85, then worked for sixteen years as a
geophysicist and scientific software developer. From
there I went to work as a lead developer for a complexity
science firm in 2000, then left there and worked as an
independent developer of geophyiscal software for four
years, before starting course work in chemistry, after
which I matriculated the Ph.D. program in Pharmacology
at a high-ranked university. In one week, after >4 years
of work I will defend my Ph.D. dissertation. My research
is in the area of human cancer and computational biology
approaches for finding improved molecular markers of the
disease.
In industry I was twice given corporate technical achievement
awards for 2 independent software systems I designed and
authored (or co-authored). My research in comp. bio. has been
published in three peer reviewed journals. Earlier this year
I was invited to present my work at the largest bioinformatics
conference in the world, in Stockholm, Sweden.
And just this afternoon I was invited to present my work again
at a university near where I now live, and it was simulcast to
another university.
Still dubious?
> Frankly I wouldn't have cared if you didn't have any programming
> experience whatsoever. I don't see AI as a programmer's problem. If
> there is a solution, I suspect the algos will most likely come from
> the domain of mathematics, emperical research into the mind, and
> philosophy. (with computer scientists putting it all together in a
> final step)
> Sometimes I can justify the annoyance of some Internet stranger being
> repeatedly patronizing if they at least can offer some sort of
> interesting argument back. In his instance, you haven't offered any of
> your views on AI whatsoever.
Can you not read, I told you I didn't want to. Why
would you presume I care to discuss what you want
to discuss? I merely pointed your quirky useage on
composition, but you kept going on and on and on.
> As you can see, others can be patronizing
> in response.
What I saw is that you made assumptions about me
and you fell flat on your face.
-RKN
Jim Klein
> > Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
> > wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
> > about 16 years, so please...
>
> Gosh. You've written high tech object oriented programming code? Next
> are you going to tell me you've even used singleton and mvc design
> patterns too? How about any of that advanced do-while loop
> technology?
I couldn't figure out why you wrote this. Rod's already
taken care of the facts of the matter, but I'm still
curious why his reference made you think he was
some rookie.
I was (and am) a Paradox user, which was relatively
early in "object-oriented programming," at least
from the public perspective. No doubt Rod was
involved earlier and at much more technical levels,
but don't you realize that "object-oriented" was
unheard of before...well, before it was heard of!
I mention it because it goes to the charge of
naivete, and your lack of understanding about
what production is. Production is about thinking
and creating, and creating is always about that
which never existed before. Hence, those that
lived before, say, object-oriented programming,
can properly take that as a (relatively) new
development.
I picked up a Webster's New International
Dictionary recently and it didn't have the
word "television" in it. Do you therefore
conclude that G & C Merriam is some
"junior level" dictionary company?
The world is not static, like some giant pie to
be analyzed and split up according to some
rational, logical analysis. That's why your
(sick IMO) reliance on the consensus will
never cut the cake. How many Rods do you
suppose are out there? How many Einsteins?
How many David Friedmans, and on and on.
The point isn't that these people are better
than others. The point is that if one seeks a
reliance on the facts as they are, about the
last place one should look...is consensus.
Yet it's where you always look, all your
speeches about rationality and objectivity
notwithstanding. Meanwhile, you're judging
men like Rod Nibbe as "junior level."
Mistakes don't get much larger than that.
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The fact you think
> "object oriented" is something to punctuate your statement with would
> strongly suggest to most experienced developers that you have a black-
> box view of computer architecture. You claim 16 years of programming
> experience but I find it highly dubious that was full time as a
> professional. From that one statement alone I would guess your
> programming skills are junior level. (and you can try and Google your
> way out of it but such a massive gaffe is going to make for a tough
> sell.)
Well, you already got caught with your pants down
on this. Never mind your guessing; what needs
work is the basis on which you develop doubt.
Then after that, you can work on the corollary...
the basis on which you develop knowledge.
OTOH, you've done me a bit of a favor, and I
can look forward to calling Rod, "Junior"...
something I never could've dreamed up myself!
jk
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
> >>A phraseology I'm quite sure would puzzle any roomful of cardiologists
> >>As I said, pretty quirky verbiage if you ask me, but knock yourself out!
> > Your thesis throughout this thread seems to be "quirky
> > verbiage" (variations of which you repeat over and over again as if I
> > didn't hear you the first time).
>
> It doesn't rise to thesis, it was merely an observation
> of quirky useage with respect to composition. Although
> accurate, it wasn't really a very important observation.
>
> > I'm still waiting to hear something
> > about your views on AI.
>
> I already told you up-thread that I have nothing
> to say to you about fractal analysis of neurons,
> or for that matter anything about AI.
> > For the record, I typically consciously try to keep the �techno-babble
> > at a minimum on a philosophy forum even if discussing techie subjects.
> > (given this isn't poly-sci or a computer science forum right?)
>
> Doesn't make any difference to me. People with
> widely variable experience on a whole range of
> topics have been discussing things on this ng
> for as long as I've been reading and posting to
> it (ca. late 90s). If I understand something and
> am interested, I read and/or respond to it, if
> not I ignore it.
>
> >>Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
> >>wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
> >>about 16 years, so please...
> > Gosh. You've written high tech object oriented programming code?
>
> High tech is relative, but yes, I have.
>
> > Next
> > are you going to tell me you've even used singleton and mvc design
> > patterns too?
>
> I've implemented many design patterns; Singleton
> not so much, model-view-controller quite a lot.
> Mediator, Observer-Listener, & Object Pool come
> to mind as well. Why would this surprise you?
You missed my sarcasm. You seem to think "objected oriented" means
something special. There are over 10 million plus programmers on this
earth that write object oriented code and know design patterns. That's
software design 101 not 401.
(e.g Stanford syllabus online.. it's within the first few weeks)
http://see.stanford.edu/see/lecturelist.aspx?coll�4a47e1-135f-4508-a5aa-866adcae1111
> > How about any of that advanced do-while loop
> > technology?
>
> How old are you? I'm going to wager that I had a
> few tens of thousands of lines of production code
> running while you were still spitting up milk.
I'm 40. I've been writing code since my early teens. (although only 18
of those years is writing code for production environments) I've won
no notable awards and I do mostly mundane sorts of plumping
programming I suppose the highlight of my resume would be involvement
it three multi-million dollar applications that handle over a billion
dollars in product annually. (but only as a member of a small team in
each instance so i don't claim to be special) At the moment I'm mostly
in the design phase for a web portal the will run on a cloud
computing environment. (coding intermittently as I reply for another
project as well)
> I received my bachelors in geology in '83, a masters in
> geophysics in '85, then worked for sixteen years as a
> geophysicist and scientific software developer.
> From
> there I went to work as a lead developer for a complexity
> science firm in 2000, then left there and worked as an
> independent developer of geophyiscal software for four
> years, before starting course work in chemistry, after
> which I matriculated the Ph.D. program in Pharmacology
> at a high-ranked university. In one week, after >4 years
> of work I will defend my Ph.D. dissertation. My research
> is in the area of human cancer and computational biology
> approaches for finding improved molecular markers of the
desease.
>
> In industry I was twice given corporate technical achievement
> awards for 2 independent software systems I designed and
> authored (or co-authored). My research in comp. bio. has been
> published in three peer reviewed journals. Earlier this year
> I was invited to present my work at the largest bioinformatics
> conference in the world, in Stockholm, Sweden.
>
> And just this afternoon I was invited to present my work again
> at a university near where I now live, and it was simulcast to
> another university.
> Still dubious?
It your claims are true, I freely admit I was wrong and your resume is
impressive. You clearly know far more about biology than I, although
I probably know more about the innards of a computer than you (given I
studied electrical engineering and specialized as a programmer). I can
see where I reached the erroneous conclusion. When you started
programming Small Talk and C++ were new. So in your mind "object
oriented" was something fancy. (whereas it is the soup dujour today
other than in legacy systems)
Nevertheless I still fail to see what the point of your injection was.
DDo you dispute fractals aren't sometimes used in a neutal net
approachs to AI? (as I suggested and provided references) . Do you
claim to know how to create an AI and that I am definitively wrong in
my suggested approach? If not... I'd say the point of your
unsolicited injection was basically to be a dick. (which you've
succeeded marvelously at achieving I might add)
Potroast
> Rod was involved earlier and at much more technical levels,
> but don't you realize that "object-oriented" was
> unheard of before...well, before it was heard of!
It's self-evident at some point object-oriented code didn't exist. I
just mistakenly drew the conclusion that because Rod was acting like a
patronizing dick and that he punctuated "object oriented" that he
lacked skills My mistake. It turns out he was someone with skills
behaving like a patronizing dick.
When someone wants to make it personal.. .I make it personal back. I'd
much prefer to politely discuss the topic at hand than insult some
stranger over the Internet. Given Rod's CV claims, he likely has
plenty of interesting things to say about the subject of AI. Having
said that, I'd say its pretty obvious he doesn't actually know how to
create an AI. Perhaps if his ego hadn't been in the way we might have
been able to enjoy a interesting conversation to explore the issue.
> The world is not static, like some giant pie to
> be analyzed and split up according to some
> rational, logical analysis. �That's why your
> (sick IMO) reliance on the consensus will
> never cut the cake. �
You like to repeat this over and over again as a "fact" Nowhere have
I said this or implied this (unless you plan to show me more snipped
out of context quotes again). First off consensus is virtually
impossible (since there is almost always be someone that sees things
different) Secondly, I have explicitly said I support votes during
political elections.. not during open heart surgery. Where I might
support voting outside of that usually has the following
conditions....
- in is not a decision that needs to be made very quickly (e.g if the
boat I am is sinking I don't throw an election)
- the subject material is way outside of my area of expertise or
knowledge.
- a significant portion of the experts themselves can't agree (for an
extended period)
- it potentially is a life threatening situation where some decision
for action (or non-action) has to be made
For example, I see no harm in any one offering their two cents on AI
or cosmology where the issues are still murky. I see little harm in
speculation as long as one doesn't pretend to be certain and doesn't
start building churches to demonzie those that might not agree with
their speculation.
On the other hand , I don't typically like to argue my "scientific"
view on things like climate change and how to perform some new
experimental type of brain surgery. (as I feel I would irresponsibly
be endangering the lives of others by so doing) However even then
voting should occur only in a very narrow sense. The people that are
doing the voting must be accredited experts in the field in question,
In addition, the vote is obviously not proof of ultimate truth. It's
only a method to determine action (or not) until further evidence
arises to clear up the foggy issue.
You seem to have a complete disdain for the occasional usefulness of
democratic principles. Does this mean you disagree with electoral set
up by the US founding fathers?
> How many Rods do you suppose are out there? �How many Einsteins?
Rod has an enviable resume (and should be applauded for it) but
Einstein in the same breath? IMO if we are judging by deliverables,
unless one of us eventually singlehandedly transforms the world
(statistically unlikely)... neither Rod, nor you, nor I are even
remotely in the same league as Einstein. At 24 Einstein had already
written papers than rocked the planet. It tarnishes the name of genius
by making such a comparison undeservedly.
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:08 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>>Potroast wrote:
>>>On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, Rod Nibbe <use...@rknibbe.com> wrote:
>>>>Prior to my recent renaissance I designed and
>>>>wrote software, much of it object-oriented, for
>>>>about 16 years, so please...
>>>Gosh. You've written high tech object oriented programming code?
>>High tech is relative, but yes, I have.
>>>Next
>>>are you going to tell me you've even used singleton and mvc design
>>>patterns too?
>>I've implemented many design patterns; Singleton
>>not so much, model-view-controller quite a lot.
>>Mediator, Observer-Listener, & Object Pool come
>>to mind as well. Why would this surprise you?
> You missed my sarcasm.
Evidently.
> You seem to think "objected oriented" means
> something special. There are over 10 million plus programmers on this
> earth that write object oriented code and know design patterns. That's
> software design 101 not 401.
I disagree. I think there are a number of important
features and idioms specific to object-oriented (OO)
programing (as distinct from sequential programming)
that should be taught in a 101 level OO class, e.g.,
inheritance, polymorphism, reuse, data/method scope,
etc.. Learning the usefulness of design patterns is
at least intermediate material.
For example...
Many years ago I took a week long class in Rational Rose,
where the class effectively designed and coded the skeleton
for ATM software. Many of the programmers in that class had
significant experience programming a variety of systems, yet
were quite unfamliar with design patterns, state diagrams,
use cases, object models, etc..
In any case, the number of practitioners of a technology
generally tells us nothing about how advanced any given
aspect of it is. There are probably millions of people who
repair automobiles, but changing tires is trivial in terms
of sophistication, compared to tuning transmissions.
[...]
>>Still dubious?
> It your claims are true,
They are.
> I freely admit I was wrong and your resume is
> impressive. You clearly know far more about biology than I, although
> I probably know more about the innards of a computer than you (given I
> studied electrical engineering and specialized as a programmer). I can
> see where I reached the erroneous conclusion. When you started
> programming Small Talk and C++ were new. So in your mind "object
> oriented" was something fancy. (whereas it is the soup dujour today
> other than in legacy systems)
When *I* started programming CRTs were new! Wrote
my first Fortran program on punch cards.
> Nevertheless I still fail to see what the point of your injection was.
I told you a few times now what it was, even conceded
in my prior response that it wasn't very important,
plus you've chided me for repeating it so I dare not
say it again!
> DDo you dispute fractals aren't sometimes used in a neutal net
> approachs to AI? (as I suggested and provided references) .
No.
> Do you
> claim to know how to create an AI and that I am definitively wrong in
> my suggested approach?
No, neither.
> If not... I'd say the point of your
> unsolicited
Unsolicited?! This is a public ng. Are you saying
people should require an invitation to speak?
> injection was basically to be a dick. (which you've
> succeeded marvelously at achieving I might add)
I disagree. The point was to inquire what you meant
w.r.t. to neurons being composed of "smaller repeating
structures," a phraseology I've since conlcuded, given
your repsonses, is quirky. At the time it may also have
revealed a mistaken understanding of the structural
composition of a neuron. It doesn't now appear to me that
you're mistaken about that, despite your reluctance to
abandon the quirky lingo.
-RKN
Rod Nibbe
Potroast wrote:
> On Nov 13, 10:38 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Rod was involved earlier and at much more technical levels,
>>but don't you realize that "object-oriented" was
>>unheard of before...well, before it was heard of!
> It's self-evident at some point object-oriented code didn't exist. I
> just mistakenly drew the conclusion that because Rod was acting like a
> patronizing dick and that he punctuated "object oriented" that he
> lacked skills My mistake. It turns out he was someone with skills
> behaving like a patronizing dick.
> When someone wants to make it personal.. .I make it personal back. I'd
> much prefer to politely discuss the topic at hand than insult some
> stranger over the Internet.
Patronizing? Maaaybe. Insulting? I don't think
so. If you think so I would suggest you have
pretty thin skin.
> Given Rod's CV claims, he likely has
> plenty of interesting things to say about the subject of AI. Having
> said that, I'd say its pretty obvious he doesn't actually know how to
> create an AI.
Given that I have explicitly said I have no interest
in discussing AI with you, and in fact throughout the
course of this thread haven't, how in the hell does
this become *obvious* to you? Do you often ignore
chasms of uncertainty when defending your conclusions
as "obvious"?
-RKN
Les Cargill
Couldn't agree more - but it's an extremely young discipline. The
problem is that we simply don't know what intelligence is.
Never mind that it inspires NeoLuddism in people like Bill Joy ( and
increasingly, myself ).
> > > If I had to guess I think the trick to better understanding
> feelings
>>> will be getting down to the nitty gritty resolution of something like
>>> a neuron and how it interacts with other neurons And just as our
>>> brain can be broken down to a collection of smaller similar neurons...
>>> neurons can themselves can be broken down into smaller repetitive
>>> structures. This is just one more reason why I suggest Mandelbrot's
>>> approach to complex shapes seems most likely to create a believable
>>> AI. It would mimic the way our brains appear to actually work.
>> Maybe. the problem is that holism and reduction in AI seem to
>> lead to fairly radically different conclusions. Even a ...
>> Kurweil-ian optomism "of course we want to be machines" seems
>> somewhat perverse. It makes a certain Luddism about this
>> palatable.
>
> Lol So true. I'd rather live like the Amish than exchange my brain
> for the upscale electronic version. It seems self-evident I could
> replace my entire body but then that wouldn't be me would it.
Right.
> Normally
> I don't take the views of anyone that describes themselves as a
> futurist too seriously. In Kurzweil's case he has an impressive resume
> and track record so I write off the occasional silly theory as
> eccentricity.
>
Sure. He's got thatobsessive quality, but it has served him well.
I do still take The Singularity quite seriously. We'll start
feeling it soon enough.
>> Maybe, but the thing seems somehow quaint, now. Cockroach-sized
>> embedded stuff has revolutionized industry *much* more than
>> any sort of AI.
>
> The funny thing about that is despite all the hullabaloo about AI...
> it might be the anti-thesis of seful. (if it decides it wants to be
> our evolutionary replacement: :(
>
Just make sure there's an "off" switch. And that somebody is
available who knows where it is.
>>> This isn't to say that the behavioral/task-oriented approach to
>>> programming doesn't have its own rewards (which is really what the
>>> modern computer represents)
>> Very much so - you get a long way with FSM oriented technology from
>> a standpoint of getting real work done.
>
> Out of curiosity are you an electrical engineer or computer science
> major Les? (seeing as most have never heard of fsm yet you understood
> perfectly what I'm referencing)
>
Yes. Degree is CS, but significant EE background too. Also
math & physics. I was in school for quite a while.
>> Now, that's got a "faux
>> linguistic" component - it's all based in the grammar calculus of
>> Chomsky/et al, but ... it doesn't have *meaning*.
>
> Can you rephrase. I can't follow your line of thinking here. (I know
> next to nothing about grammar calculus)
>
FSM grew out of or were parallel to Chomsky's mostly excellent
work in linguistics, in and around parsing. The timeline is
sufficiently tangled that it's hard to say who did exactly what.
But FSM themselves do not have "meaning". There's no semantic
content. When we understand things, there's a "something else"
invested in that understanding, a "something else" that's not all
that mechanical. Since it's also not mystical, we dunno what it is.
The thing has no "self". It's not even a parrot (parrots *do*
have selves).
<snip>
>>> (Although this does not necessarily mean that the intelligence is
>>> "alive" which is a distinct issue)
>> i still think Issaac Asimov's "start with the ethics of the thing"
>> is critical.
>
> Asimov. The robot prophet. Love that guy. It's amazing how his three
> laws could generate so many ethical conundrums and philosophical
> observations, (not to mention how the 3 laws are a good base in
> practical design). While he wrote mostly fiction, his robot short
> stories are essential reading for anyone interested in AI.
>
He also wrote a great deal of nonfiction, and that muse helped his
fiction IME.
> I'm a career programmer but alas mostly mundane projects nothing fancy
> like AI.
Well, I did AI briefly in the '80s. We had a search engine product
for minicomputers - some of the math was the exact same as Google's
The Algorithm - relevance trimming, reverse chaining, conceptual
linkage analysis.
Just pure happy accident - my boss was into that. P&G bought it,
many law firms. You'd get striking results with it, but you
couldn't confuse the results with "knowlege". They bring
this out in the "search overload" commercials M$ does against
Google for their search product, Bing.
We made mad money for the company, so they dropped the
product - my boss had "gotten too big for his britches",
there was a management shakeup. He was really the architect, I
was just there to help.
I went into realtime embedded stuff and never looked back. He
went on to found three or four serious companies.
> Working on a back end business rules for a complex warranty
> validation application is as close as I've ever come. Part of the
> design tried to anticipate certain kinds of fraud (to flag the
> suspicious warranty request for further examination by humans) AI
> still fascinates me though. It isn't just about the technology.
Of course it's not. It's golem-study. It's us. That's
part of the problem - it's a lot narcissistic.
> I see
> it as the ultimate philosophy bullshit detector. If someone can't
> program the ethics, then they aren't purely analytical. They are just
> occasionally shifting around the rules to make it seem that way.
But ethics can't be an absolute, can't be prima
facie analytical . I don't think so, anyway. But
what's really sad today is that they're another "values"
thing - it's almost as though "do what thou wilt shall
be the whole of the law." The potential for self-delusion is
endless.
Take military school honor codes. They lead to all sorta
bizarre outcomes. Honor culture in general led to
such strangenesses as dueling and Robert E. Lee's
treason against his own country ( actually a disagreement
about what *was* his country, Virginia or the USA).
You just *know*, no matter what a machine may tell you. So
long as you keep your eyes open.
ObDsclosure: I shall probably never actually *understand* Chapter
V of ITOE, so maybe I'm not your go-to guy for
ethics in-the-large...
> The
> unknown underlaying subconscious principles they shift their own
> alleged rules by is more concrete. (this fudge factor applies to me
> too of course)
>
>
>
Well, if you mean how people delude themselves or rationalize,
then sure.
--
Les Cargill
Potroast
I read somewhere becoming an experienced OOP programmer takes an
average of around a decade. So in a practical sense you are correct.
And of course you have to learn to use a bicycle before doing tricks
with it so basic oop principles logically come before design
patterns..
OOP is by far the norm today though (which it wasn't 15 year ago when
it was competing with top-down) As far as I know, procedural languages
although still lurking about (mostly C I think because the syntax
resembles so many other languages) have largely been abandoned for oop
training languages like Karel++, Lisp spin offs, and even actual
languages. (although oddly enough Fortran is still popular among high
end supercomputing) . From an awareness sense (i.e. what is oop, what
are design patterns) programmers today are introduced much earlier on
to design concepts since they they learn oop almost from the start.
(I have not not polled every institute of higher learning to confirm
my hypothesis)
> For example...
>
> Many years ago I took a week long class in Rational Rose,
> where the class effectively designed and coded the skeleton
> for ATM software. Many of the programmers in that class had
> significant experience programming a variety of systems, yet
> were quite unfamliar with design patterns, state diagrams,
> use cases, object models, etc..
I find programmers tend to fall into two categories. Those with
computer science degrees and those that learned programming via "other
means" (e.g. some other degree where they also happened to use
programming commercial, certification programs, etc..). The computer
science degrees will usually be familiar with all the things you
mention from the get go (and then some). It's hit and miss with the
latter category.
I came from electrical engineering not specifically computer science
(so I fall into the "other means") . When I got my first full time
job I thought I knew it all. When I reflect back I think that it was
because up to that moment in time virtually every piece of code I had
ever worked on was something I had created. I then discovered there
are these "minor" steps called testing and documentation. (as anyone
can attest to that's been faced with trying to interpret poorly
documented spaghetti code written by a string of long gone programmers
with a business analyst yelling at you to fix it by yesterday)
That said, while new hires can be rough around the edges, I can't
recall ever meeting an experienced programmer that didn't know what a
use case was for or a state diagram. What do their design documents
look like? How do they test? (although in defense of your argument,
most of my professional experience has been at companies that have
something along iso standards so that may be skewing my view of what a
typical experienced programmer represents)
> In any case, the number of practitioners of a technology
> generally tells us nothing about how advanced any given
> aspect of it is. There are probably millions of people who
> repair automobiles, but changing tires is trivial in terms
> of sophistication, compared to tuning transmissions.
> I told you a few times now what it was, even conceded
> in my prior response that it wasn't very important,
> plus you've chided me for repeating it so I dare not
> say it again!
> > DDo you dispute fractals aren't sometimes used in a neutal net
> > approachs to AI? (as I suggested and provided references) .
>
> No.
>
> > Do you
> > claim to know how to create an AI and that I am definitively wrong in
> > my suggested approach? �
>
> No, neither.
>
> > If not... I'd say the point of your
> > unsolicited
>
> Unsolicited?! This is a public ng. Are you saying
> people should require an invitation to speak?
I didn't mind the response. I didn't even mind the critique. It was
the repetition that got under my skin.
> > injection was basically to be a dick. �(which you've
> > succeeded marvelously at achieving I might add)
>
> I disagree. The point was to inquire what you meant
> w.r.t. to neurons being composed of "smaller repeating
> structures," a phraseology I've since conlcuded, given
> your repsonses, is quirky. At the time it may also have
> revealed a mistaken understanding of the structural
> composition of a neuron. It doesn't now appear to me that
> you're mistaken about that, despite your reluctance to
> abandon the quirky lingo.
(putting aside you are repeating "quirky lingo" yet again) as you
said, this is a public board. As i don't usually expect many
programmers to be on a philosophy forum I usually try to use broader
language.
Can we please move back to AI and stop pointing fingers at each other
over trivial things? Truce? I'd be interested in hearing your views
on your theories for a good approach to AI. (and what you define as
AI)
As for my views....
It's certainly entirely possible semiconductors trying to mimic carbon
based intelligence will ultimately not match up or that we won't find
a minimalist way to intelligence. I don't think we have a good enough
grasp of our brains or consciousness to say that quite yet. Thus my
suggested approach here is based on philosophical considerations NOT
software or biological factors which are still tbd.
It seem rational if we wish to compare A to A... A should mimic A as
much as possible. Thus if A has 100 billion repeating parts that don't
individually have a grasp of reality... build software "parts" using
the same analytical principles (e.g. Why would brains end up with
such similar characteristics and layout if pure chaos was at work?).
And since those individual repeating parts that look similar still
also differ in ways.... it also makes sense to see if there is a
minimalist formula behind that seeming chaos too. (perhaps one
formula, perhaps a thousand)
Again, I'm arguing this from philosophical approach NOT what is
currently known about biology and software (because both those factors
are still up in the air). Since Occam's razor is the ideal I mentioned
Mandelbrot as a possible avenue (but not exclusively so)
Let's suppose we go the alternate route though and build something
that can pass a Turing test using the brute force way (i.e. just keep
adding lines of code for every scenario and some nuanced range for
added realism) Not only does it pass the test but we cover it in a
realistic body and it's so close to looking and acting like a human
that it could easily pass for a human. Such a device immense useful
(essentially a moral way to have slaves) but from a philosophical
standpoint I would not consider that true intelligence (although I'd
have to see the finished product to better gage). Why should it be
deemed "intelligent" when the same computer running only slightly less
code wasn't "intelligent"?
Therefore "passing a Turing test" =! "intelligence. It's only one
factor. The other one is a philosophical assessment of the
architecture behind what achieved the end goal.
There are reasons why I see the distinction as to how closely AI
resembles our own brain might matter. For example, we tend to see
machines as useful but lets suppose one day my toaster bot asks me for
"rights". I won't normally grant a toaster rights. Just because this
one happened to pass a Turing test does it mean I must now grant it
rights? (I sure wouldn't no matter how much it ran its cry method but
it the principles were close to a human that might muddy they ethical
waters)
Or consider we are currently putting all the means of production in
the hands of machines. In so doing we are also putting more and more
of the decision making (e.g electronic trading), How far do we go
with that given everything is also interconnected? (e.g. All of
industry? Nuke launch codes? Machines for police? Is an machine more
trustworthy if the principles behind its reason are completely human-
like or if they aren't?
Potroast
There are slightly different spins on the singularity concept. The one
that sticks out most in my mind is the idea we will create an
intelligent machine that is slightly smarter than us than can self-
improve on its own design. This would mean we couldn't predict the
outcome of future designs for certain because we are not smart enough.
It's both an immensely exciting and utterly terrifying prospect.
If its possible, I'm sure we'll go through with it. (given we are a
species that thinks creating nuclear weapons was a good idea)
> >> Maybe, but the thing seems somehow quaint, now. Cockroach-sized
> >> embedded stuff has revolutionized industry *much* more than
> >> any sort of AI.
>
> > The funny thing about that is despite all the hullabaloo about AI...
> > it might be the anti-thesis of seful. (if it decides it wants to be
> > our evolutionary replacement: :(
>
> Just make sure there's an "off" switch. And that somebody is
> available who knows where it is.
That's just it. If something along a singularity AI is created by
definition we won't be in control of the off switch any longer (at
least not for certain). We will have abdicated authority. Hopefully
future iterations will have a soft spot for its original programming
to obey us (or at the very least be a benign dictator)
I always see "M$" around the open source and p2p crowd. I won't ask
you to incriminate yourself so I'll just ask what do you think of GPL
versus software patents/copyright?
I like open source but for the most part I don't see it as good as
paid for alternatives. I see its chief benefit as putting substantial
constant pressure on commercial developers to keep innovating (least
open source swallow their market and put them out of business)
As for DMCA, it generally sucks. I don't believe in software patents
at all (which is why more and more of these silly law suits are
happening) I agree with limited term copyright. As for making it
illegal to decompile... DMCA has it exactly backwards. All programming
code should be sold with source code by law (to easily validate no one
is shoving in getting unwanted "extras" like rootkits).
> > I see
> > it as the ultimate philosophy bullshit detector. If someone can't
> > program the ethics, then they aren't purely analytical. They are �just
> > occasionally shifting around the rules to make it seem that way.
>
> But ethics can't be an absolute, can't be prima
> facie �analytical . I don't think so, anyway.
I don't know if it's from sitting around computers for so long or
reading philosophy but my general view is I like things "optimized".
I could run around naked in bush but the prospect doesn't usually
appeal to me. I could walk to a convenience store on the other side of
town but the prospect doesn't appeal to me either. I look at ethics in
this manner as well. I don't want messy ethics that makes my life more
difficult. Why not optimize.
On the surface ethnics sometimes don't appear analytical. (or at least
not to me). I trace that erratic break in behavior to emotion (which
is mostly a black hole from an analytic standpoint... one reason I
think we can't build believable AI yet) This is why I don't really
subscribe to any particular philosophy (other than my own which is a
mish-mash off odds and ends that seems to evolve with time). When I
think about the chaotic and complex aspects of nature it seems a
forgone conclusion I'll never know the optimal method to live.
On the other hand, there may be analytical building block principles
behind what appear to be messy ethical principles. I know things can
be described analytically. Computers exist and they do exactly that.
So what makes a computer's atoms special over mine? So while I never
expect I personally will ever know the perfect rules, I think through
rationalized struggle we can constantly improve on the ones we have.
(both in ourselves and in our machines)
Jim Klein
[to Rod...]
> Can we please move back to AI...
Goddammittohell...this is why you're so frustrating.
Did Rod not address this, several times already?
I don't see how you can be a programmer, if you
never listen at all.
jk
Jim Klein
> > That's why your
> > (sick IMO) reliance on the consensus will
> > never cut the cake.
>
> You like to repeat this over and over again as a "fact"
Yeah, I tend to do that with facts, at least the ones
others refuse to see. Usually, that's an error on
my part, since they rarely come to see.
> Nowhere have
> I said this or implied this (unless you plan to show me more snipped
> out of context quotes again).
Yeah well, you'll charge "out of context" unless I repost
all of your endless posts in their entirety.
I won't do that, since they won't be any shorter or
any more principled the second time around!
> First off consensus is virtually
> impossible (since there is almost always be someone that sees things
> different)
Is that what consensus means? Or are you a programmer
who doesn't understand what "since" means in this usage?
> Secondly, I have explicitly said I support votes during
> political elections..
What do you support there, if not the consensus and
what it achieves?
So is it that, "consensus is virtually impossible" or is
it, "I support votes..."? Both? Neither? Something else?
> You seem to have a complete disdain for the occasional usefulness of
> democratic principles.
This is what happens when you don't listen; you get
everything wrong. Do you think I don't believe in
voting in any circumstance? Hell, how could I ever
take my family out to eat if I didn't believe in that?
My wife doesn't accept dictatorships!
Even though I control my business, there have
been plenty of things (okay, some things!) that
I've subjected to a vote. Either I didn't care or I
didn't think I was the best person to decide.
What in the world does any of this have to do with
your incessant claims: that there is a form of
"tending toward the truth" to be found in the
consensus (even though you don't word it like
that), or much, much worse...that there arises
some justification for controlling and coercing
others from it?
> Does this mean you disagree with electoral set
> up by the US founding fathers?
What's the point in even discussing with you? You
just don't listen and from all appearances, never
learn. I know that can't be right since you're a
programmer. You must've learned something
sometime, but you sure don't engage in the action
these days.
We've gone over this at length. Hell, you don't even
realize what the "electoral set up by the US founding
fathers" WAS. I went through the trouble of citing
THE document which was THE founding of "The
United States of America," but obviously it went
right through that vacuum between your ears.
You can go on writing, calling men like Rod "dicks,"
thinking that you're actually doing something. But
you either start paying attention, or you can forget
about my continued help. You appear not to want
it anyway, which is becoming fine by me.
But for this one last tug at my heart, since you're
a kid. Have you seen the movie "Changeling"? I
just saw it last night. This is a good one for you
and your limitless naivete. This movie shows how
the world /actually/ works, and what /actually/
happens. And don't even think of saying, "It's just
a movie." According to the introduction, it wasn't
"based on a true story." According to the unambiguous
claim, it was "A true story." Like period, which is
a very unusual introduction to a movie. And being
that it was directed and produced by Clint Eastwood
(and Ron Howard and others), I'm inclined to think
that if it says that, it's so.
> > How many Rods do you suppose are out there? How many Einsteins?
>
> Rod has an enviable resume (and should be applauded for it) but
> Einstein in the same breath?
Like I say...either start paying attention, or take a hike.
I put David Friedman in the same breath, and I
could've put innumerable others. Much worse for
you, I clearly explained why.
I would hope Rod is much wiser than Einstein, since he
has so much more knowledge (facts) at his avail. You
should be too, so if you're not, you're making yet some
other mistake.
jk
Potroast
And I can't see how you seem to be suggesting you are a proficient
Paradox user and not know it's not object oriented programming?
Paradox is a RDMS NOT a programming language. I presume you are
referencing the objectpal language... which is also NOT a true object
oriented programming language (since in lacks true inheritance and
therefore true polymorphism).
Potroast
> On Nov 14, 4:10 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > �That's why your
> > > (sick IMO) reliance on the consensus will
> > > never cut the cake.
>
> > You like to repeat this over and over again as a "fact"
>
> Yeah, I tend to do that with facts, at least the ones
> others refuse to see. �Usually, that's an error on
> my part, since they rarely come to see.
A "fact" when I have told you first hand (repeatedly) you are
misrepresenting my views? (and spending time clarifying them yet
again)
I think I;m just going to snip out the rest of your reply. What
purpose is there in communicating with someone it they are just going
pull out one straw man after another using such "facts". (unless you
care to stick to discussing something to do with computers on this
thread labeled "Do computers need feelings")
Jim Klein
> On Nov 15, 12:01 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 12:13 am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [to Rod...]
>
> > > Can we please move back to AI...
>
> > Goddammittohell...this is why you're so frustrating.
>
> > Did Rod not address this, several times already?
>
> > I don't see how you can be a programmer, if you
> > never listen at all.
>
> And I can't see how you seem to be suggesting you are a proficient
> Paradox user
What...are you trying to make my point, that you
simply don't listen? I made no such suggestion
and I wrote nothing even remotely close to "proficient."
> and not know it's not object oriented programming?
> Paradox is a RDMS NOT a programming language. I presume you are
> referencing the objectpal language...
Great use of bandwidth...yes, obviously. Only
languages are languages, I think.
> which is also NOT a true object
> oriented programming language (since in lacks true inheritance and
> therefore true polymorphism).
If you say so...I wouldn't know. I know there's an
inheritance of sorts owing to containership, but
I've no idea what "true inheritance" or "true
polymorphism" might mean.
Nor will you find anything written by me, that implies
that I do...unless you keep imagining that things like
the word "proficient" appeared, even though they didn't.
Start focussing. Either put up what I wrote that
was false so I can retract and correct, or shut
the fuck up already.
jk
Potroast
> On Nov 15, 12:51 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 12:01 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 12:13 am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [to Rod...]
>
> > > > Can we please move back to AI...
>
> > > Goddammittohell...this is why you're so frustrating.
>
> > > Did Rod not address this, several times already?
>
> > > I don't see how you can be a programmer, if you
> > > never listen at all.
>
> > And I can't see how you seem to be suggesting you are a proficient
> > Paradox user
>
> What...are you trying to make my point, that you
> simply don't listen? �I made no such suggestion
> and I wrote nothing even remotely close to "proficient."
"Either put up what I wrote that was false so I can retract and
correct, or shut the fuck up already"
I see. So you feel I've misinterpreted something about your views and
are now trying to clarify. I understand completely. Who would want to
have their views repeatedly misrepresented. People that do so should
"shut the fuck up already".
Les Cargill
It's software Platonism. It is "crystal spheres" stuff. But
it happens to facilitate (interpersonal) communications when
it works. Or so they tell me.
The simple fact is that type hierarchies are difficult and
expensive. Proof of that is that things called "class
browsers" exist. Why have tools to manage complexity if
there's no cost perceived? At best, semantic information can
be derived from class hierarchy - if everyone does it
properly. This leads to an amore propre, which is cheaper
than real "propre" and works fractionally as well. But the
summed cost may well be lower... it depends.
Once upon a time, you could find Don Knuth opining
that "OO gets us no closer to the goal of
provably correct programs" but... the river washed that
out.
Like all really ambitious things, some of it is
better than other parts. The main thing I note
about it is that companies that are on its vanguard
tend to die in about five years, absorbed by
big companies, then they go abandonware.
> Nor will you find anything written by me, that implies
> that I do...unless you keep imagining that things like
> the word "proficient" appeared, even though they didn't.
>
Welcome to "alpha geek" culture since 1999. It's
right next door to the "angry Asian male" syndrome, an
artifact of transference. It'll be this way
until we have fembots...
But what it really does is allow an architecture of
corporate software development involving "system
architects" , who understand the value of everything
and the cost of nothing. it is the principle vector
of "software bloat". But it also decouples layers of
software development processes to facilitate customer
relations in a more interesting manner.
There are interesting parallels with EO Wilson's stuff
here, so I have to be circumspect about it. One cultural
function of OO is to shunt competitiveness by a discipline
of forms. And the math behind it is very, very sound - almost
inarguable. It's just a lot to ask of ordinary undergrads.
> Start focussing. Either put up what I wrote that
> was false so I can retract and correct, or shut
> the fuck up already.
>
>
> jk
He's in a box he can't think outside of. That's my
guess, anyway. Me? OO? I can certainly play
in that puddle, very effectively. But the grass is
always greener :)
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
No, I think that it's closer to "Player Piano" - "what are people *for*.
I think we see this right now. In his polemic "We Are Doomed: Reclaiming
Conservative Pessimism", John Derbyshire goes on somewhat
at length ( apparently - all I saw was his Book TV about it, and have
not yet read it ). it's on video and it's on line, and I heartily
recommend it.
I don't think we need a "bang", more of a whimper. But any Luddism,
especially this one, is always highly, highly suspect - they don't
seem to pan out. We invent around them. But as real productivity is
pushed farther and farther to the right of the Bell Curve, the
social-contract buy-in of those down the curve is always in stress.
And I realize this is horribly... Liberal, but the empirical facts
of the case force me to at least confront it with an open mind. Then
again, I share John's essential pessimism ( as opposed to the....
forced, Joker-ish cheerful optmism we're all forced into these days).
When you've had a major financial disaster based in pure denial,
driven ostensibly by the ... Amway sensibility of the Religious
Right.... not to mention the resonant religious sentiment
of the Left.... balance seems ... good. Made for one hell
of a perfect storm, didn't it?
We all live on a small planet, and the failure of jefferson's
yeoman farmer program in the Dust Bowl was a near thing, even if
both Hoover and FDR effed this up. If you can, rent "The Trip to
Bountiful" and watch it with an open heart. It's all
right there.
And I'd like to invite my friend Fred Weiss to come beat
me severely about the head and shoulders with what I have
wrong about this. I know - too much Eeyore.... hopefully
by pointing at a weed growing up through a crack in
concrete and saying "I refute it thusly".
> If its possible, I'm sure we'll go through with it. (given we are a
> species that thinks creating nuclear weapons was a good idea)
>
I don't know why we'd bother. "it's even better than the real thing".
Huge negative utility risk, almost no clear benefit. Look to
the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag for examples....
>>>> Maybe, but the thing seems somehow quaint, now. Cockroach-sized
>>>> embedded stuff has revolutionized industry *much* more than
>>>> any sort of AI.
>>> The funny thing about that is despite all the hullabaloo about AI...
>>> it might be the anti-thesis of seful. (if it decides it wants to be
>>> our evolutionary replacement: :(
>> Just make sure there's an "off" switch. And that somebody is
>> available who knows where it is.
>
> That's just it. If something along a singularity AI is created by
> definition we won't be in control of the off switch any longer (at
> least not for certain). We will have abdicated authority. Hopefully
> future iterations will have a soft spot for its original programming
> to obey us (or at the very least be a benign dictator)
>
Then I would oppose it with every single fiber of my being, unless
you can categorically prove no harm will come. And I *do* mean prove.
And I can prove ... that you can't prove that.
If "Fountainhead" "proves that it is moral to blow up buildings"*, then
this is a billion times moreso. It is an electronic boot,
smashing a face forever. My species, right or wrong.
*I forget the source there. sorry.
<snip>
>
> I always see "M$" around the open source and p2p crowd. I won't ask
> you to incriminate yourself so I'll just ask what do you think of GPL
> versus software patents/copyright?
>
I am for 'em. I am like the boatman in "The Outlaw Josey Wales",
equally adept with "The Battle Hymn" and "Dixie". I think
Eric Raymond is probably wrong, but I don't have
the tools to attack him properly. Much of it is right. He
is most certainly much, much smarter than I am.
If nothing else, they represent two competing strains that coeveolve,
in the sense that Catholicism and Protestantism made us who
we are. I think we are pre-Scottish Enlilghtenment historically
in that way, though.
I do think Bill Gates letter to Byte that code is property was a
positive, manifesto level work, and that it has enabled the evolution
(and revolution) so far. But I also realize that charging economic
rent for algorithms is problematic, in pure terms of technical
economics. But that is a deep and subtle subject. Neither Larry Wall
nor Larry Ellison have The Answer. As we speak, it takes both. We've
a failure to be capable of analyzing this among us. And that invites the
politics of identity, so, like Rhett Butler, I run the blockade....
> I like open source but for the most part I don't see it as good as
> paid for alternatives.
It depends. For those cases where the thing is essentially a dream,
a very personal work of art, open source seems to work
better. Or for true, critical infrastructure. Open source actually
dovetails well with closed source. And I've had very sad emails
from people who lent expertise to open source projects who came
from failed closed source products.
I see its chief benefit as putting substantial
> constant pressure on commercial developers to keep innovating (least
> open source swallow their market and put them out of business)
>
*Snort*. No. It enables pointy haired bosses to cheat at things. It's
"The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance" in reverse - first comes the
fences, then comes the open range. Well, sounds like the Tragedy of the
Commons, doesn't it? and, not to sound paranoid, open source is a
cabal, one with very narrow accountability parameters.
> As for DMCA, it generally sucks. I don't believe in software patents
> at all (which is why more and more of these silly law suits are
> happening) I agree with limited term copyright. As for making it
> illegal to decompile... DMCA has it exactly backwards. All programming
> code should be sold with source code by law (to easily validate no one
> is shoving in getting unwanted "extras" like rootkits).
>
one thing people forget about Abraham Lincoln is that he was
a railroad lawyer. We haven't had our Lincoln, or David Hume yet.
The law takes a long time to evolve.
>>> I see
>>> it as the ultimate philosophy bullshit detector. If someone can't
>>> program the ethics, then they aren't purely analytical. They are just
>>> occasionally shifting around the rules to make it seem that way.
>> But ethics can't be an absolute, can't be prima
>> facie analytical . I don't think so, anyway.
>
> I don't know if it's from sitting around computers for so long or
> reading philosophy but my general view is I like things "optimized".
Yeah, well, eventually you'll get over that. Reading of
Macnamara helps. It is, ultimately, a form of consumerism - "I
wish to optimize the number of Vietnamese bodies produced for my hard
earned tax dollars."
The character of Milo Minderbinder in "Catch 22" perfectly
encapsulates this. "And everybody gets a share."
> I could run around naked in bush but the prospect doesn't usually
> appeal to me. I could walk to a convenience store on the other side of
> town but the prospect doesn't appeal to me either. I look at ethics in
> this manner as well. I don't want messy ethics that makes my life more
> difficult. Why not optimize.
>
Because people aren't linear.
> On the surface ethnics sometimes don't appear analytical. (or at least
> not to me). I trace that erratic break in behavior to emotion (which
> is mostly a black hole from an analytic standpoint... one reason I
> think we can't build believable AI yet)
but emotion is, apparently a computational process. I actually started a
novel about this. Maybe I should finish it. But ... yuck... it'd end
up being some sort of Dan Brown abortion... man,I could go for
those proceeds, though... :)just one more pass of the dice, maaaaaan....
> This is why I don't really
> subscribe to any particular philosophy (other than my own which is a
> mish-mash off odds and ends that seems to evolve with time). When I
> think about the chaotic and complex aspects of nature it seems a
> forgone conclusion I'll never know the optimal method to live.
>
The perfect is the enemy of the good enough. Your magick box in
your skull does a very good job of optimizing things that can't
otherwise so be optimized. It has to, or you wouldn't be here.
> On the other hand, there may be analytical building block principles
> behind what appear to be messy ethical principles. I know things can
> be described analytically. Computers exist and they do exactly that.
Yes, and like the ultimate in Liberalism, it becomes empty and devoid
of meaning. Which is bad. Now here's Walter Sobchack to explain...
> So what makes a computer's atoms special over mine? So while I never
> expect I personally will ever know the perfect rules, I think through
> rationalized struggle we can constantly improve on the ones we have.
> (both in ourselves and in our machines)
But understand - ruthless men will want to control this process. And
indeed, they do.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Nibbe
Les Cargill wrote:
> Jim Klein wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 12:51 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Great use of bandwidth...yes, obviously. Only
>> languages are languages, I think.
>>> which is also NOT a true object
>>> oriented programming language (since in lacks true inheritance and
>>> therefore true polymorphism).
>> If you say so...I wouldn't know. I know there's an
>> inheritance of sorts owing to containership, but
>> I've no idea what "true inheritance" or "true
>> polymorphism" might mean.
> It's software Platonism. It is "crystal spheres" stuff. But
> it happens to facilitate (interpersonal) communications when
> it works. Or so they tell me.
> The simple fact is that type hierarchies are difficult and
> expensive. Proof of that is that things called "class
> browsers" exist. Why have tools to manage complexity if
> there's no cost perceived? At best, semantic information can
> be derived from class hierarchy - if everyone does it
> properly. This leads to an amore propre, which is cheaper
> than real "propre" and works fractionally as well. But the
> summed cost may well be lower... it depends.
Speaking of complexity, *multiple* inheritance in
OO opens up a complex can of worms. Any decent
programmer can proably pull it off once, and may
even be able to justify her decision to do so, but
if she's struck by a bus the next day I pity her
replacement.
Like any code, you can hang yourself if you
ignore commenting it. All the quicker with
many OO languages.
> Once upon a time, you could find Don Knuth opining
> that "OO gets us no closer to the goal of
> provably correct programs" but... the river washed that
> out.
I believe Bjarne Stroustrup is on record saying he
deeply regrets having added multiple inheritance
to C++.
> Like all really ambitious things, some of it is
> better than other parts. The main thing I note
> about it is that companies that are on its vanguard
> tend to die in about five years, absorbed by
> big companies, then they go abandonware.
I worked for one of those! Didn't have anything
to do with implementing OO, tho. They wanted to
run before learning to crawl. To say nothing of
the expected fiasco of getting many big egos to
agree to cooperate on a shared goal, and then
poof! the angels get wind of that and yank the
funding. dotCom --> dotBomb.
> But what it really does is allow an architecture of
> corporate software development involving "system
> architects" , who understand the value of everything
> and the cost of nothing.
No kidding. I'm sure there was (or is) an "architect"
or two who deserve that title, someone with a birdseye
view of system development who can actually bring some
value to a project team, but I never experienced one.
They were more often people who had been around a while
who needed a loftier title to justify the corner office
with the Ficus Tree.
> it is the principle vector
> of "software bloat". But it also decouples layers of
> software development processes to facilitate customer
> relations in a more interesting manner.
I haven't coded anything serious in quite a while, mostly
MATLAB as of late, but when I did I enjoyed the roll-up-your
sleeves feel of C. Head-smacking mistakes were often caught
early, long before OO-style bloat (I agree w/you) when it
could take a day or more to find them.
-RKN
Potroast
> Jim Klein wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 12:51 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 15, 12:01 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 15, 12:13 am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> [to Rod...]
> >>>> Can we please move back to AI...
> >>> Goddammittohell...this is why you're so frustrating.
> >>> Did Rod not address this, several times already?
> >>> I don't see how you can be a programmer, if you
> >>> never listen at all.
> >> And I can't see how you seem to be suggesting you are a proficient
> >> Paradox user
>
> > What...are you trying to make my point, that you
> > and I wrote nothing even remotely close to "proficient."
>
> >> and not know it's not object oriented programming?
> >> Paradox is a RDMS NOT a programming language. I presume you are
> >> referencing the objectpal language...
>
> > languages are languages, I think.
>
> >> which is also NOT a true object
> >> oriented programming language (since in lacks true inheritance and
> >> therefore true polymorphism).
>
> > inheritance of sorts owing to containership, but
> > I've no idea what "true inheritance" or "true
> > polymorphism" might mean.
>
> It's software Platonism. It is "crystal spheres" stuff. But
> it happens to facilitate (interpersonal) communications when
> it works. Or so they tell me.
If a programming language doesn't support inheritance, polymorphism
and abstraction and is still called OOP... then why not call C a type
of OOP because most of its syntax resembles C++ right? Lets not get
fussy here because it's "crystal sphere stuff" to suggest C is not
OOP. Or how about lettuce is kind of cabbage because its "vegetable
Platonism" to argue it's not. There is certainly no absolute agreed
upon definition of OOP (thus gray areas exist where it can be argued
either way) there is still a range of sorts where something can be
called not OOP.
The last time I used Paradox was in the late 90s (so I'm by no means
an expert myself). Y2K was approaching and IBM was busy doing
assessments on every last piece of software/hardware (my employer at
the time). We migrated a minor ASD bucket off Paradox because we felt
it was enough off the beaten path that it added unnecessary expense.
Paradox's implementation of inheritance was both proprietary and
lacking . Polymorphism was almost non-existent (stemming from the
inheritance problem). And now that I think about it I don't think it
has even quasi-support for abstraction. This makes it more object-ish
than something that can be formally categorized in the range of a true
OOP.
It wasn't immature tech snobbery why we dumped it. Paradox could
achieve a similar functional business result. However, we didn't have
a dedicated full time job for it in the department I was in. That
meant it was a part time gig for some random programmer that
specialized in something else. Our rationale was that since most
programmers weren't familiar with Objectpal and since it also breaks
the OOP model it adds unnecessary development/maintenance costs by
breaking commonly familiar design patterns. (and since there is
typically high turnover rate in ASM jobs that added learning cost
would be repeated over and over again indefinitely) For the
conditions is was going to be used in, It simply cost more to stick
with Paradox rather than to migrate. (which might not be the case in
Jim's situation. I can't say)
> The simple fact is that type hierarchies are difficult and
> expensive. Proof of that is that things called "class
> browsers" exist. Why have tools to manage complexity if
> there's no cost perceived? At best, semantic information can
> be derived from class hierarchy - if everyone does it
> properly. This leads to an amore propre, which is cheaper
> than real "propre" and works fractionally as well. But the
> summed cost may well be lower... it depends.
>
> Once upon a time, you could find Don Knuth opining
> that "OO gets us no closer to the goal of
> provably correct programs" but... the river washed that
> out.
>
> Like all really ambitious things, some of it is
> better than other parts. The main thing I note
> about it is that companies that are on its vanguard
> tend to die in about five years, absorbed by
> big companies, then they go abandonware.
>
> > Nor will you find anything written by me, that implies
> > that I do...unless you keep imagining that things like
> > the word "proficient" appeared, even though they didn't.
>
> Welcome to "alpha geek" culture since 1999. It's
> right next door to the "angry Asian male" syndrome, an
> artifact of transference. It'll be this way
> until we have fembots...
I have been nothing but polite and appreciative of your responses
because up to the moment you've been nothing but the same to me Les.
There was no justification for you to inject these sorts of comments
other than your own case of "alphageek" syndrome. My comment to Jim
was solely in response to his constant hounding that usually has
little to do with the thread discussion. Jim's mode of discussion with
me of late seems to be a repetitive wagging finger rather than any
attempt to inject facts that relate to the topic thread. He seems like
a likable well meaning sort but it can get annoying when someone
constantly attempts to crucify you.
As mentioned before, I don't believe I am purely analytical but I try
to be as analytical as possible in my approach to ethnics. For
example, on an Internet forum I really don't care who claims to be the
greater amoeba in a universe that spans at least billions of light
years across and even less so who claims to have the wisest penis of
them all. What interests me is honestly investigating individual
issues at hand to see what I might learn, reaffirm, or discover I'm
wrong about.
However, if the purpose of someone's reply appears simply an attempt
at character assassination (as opposed to mining some particular
impersonal issue)... my activity diagram starts up a loop in a
separate thread called "hit back". I then add a counter in the loop
that if it goes high enough I exit the discussion. If the behavior
stops (thus the counter never reaches for the exit) the condition to
leave the loop is met and I close the thread to move on to the next
piece of code. (i.e. the discussion at hand)
I do not put myself above the rules I describe above and fully expect
others to respond in self-defense and annoyance if I cross lines too.
We all make our judgments of others but when it comes to one-on-one
debate a polite approach seems reasonable to me from a rationale
standpoint. Otherwise things just turn into a shooting match during
which time little is communicated. Perhaps others feel things work
different on Internet forums but this has been my observation over the
years.
> But what it really does is allow an architecture of
> corporate software development involving "system
> architects" , who understand the value of everything
> and the cost of nothing. it is the principle vector
> of "software bloat". But it also decouples layers of
> software development processes to facilitate customer
> relations in a more interesting manner.
>
> There are interesting parallels with EO Wilson's stuff
> here, so I have to be circumspect about it. One cultural
> function of OO is to shunt competitiveness by a discipline
> of forms. And the math behind it is very, very sound - almost
> inarguable. It's just a lot to ask of ordinary undergrads.
>
> > Start focussing. �ｿｽEither put up what I wrote that
> > was false so I can retract and correct, or shut
> > the fuck up already.
>
> > jk
>
> He's in a box he can't think outside of. That's my
> guess, anyway. Me? OO? I can certainly play
> in that puddle, very effectively. But the grass is
> always greener :)
Think out of the box? Gee whiz never heard that (largely meaningless)
cliche uttered by a million middle managers at meetings before.
So going back to my prior point of my "hit back" thread when things
become personal.
If our roles were reversed at this second, I'd see myself faced with a
conditional statement. Amongst the switch choices would be
"discontinue responding", a "hit back" thread, "accept ethical
responsibility for instigating so the conversation can continue", or
maybe even follow an "alpha geek" instinct to explain how the other
guy is wrong for hit backing back when I just finished attacking him
unprovoked several times over (which probably wouldn't help me
"facilitate interpersonal communication" with the person on the other
end but might feel good).
(incidentally - I don't interpret occasional "I'm wrong" admissions as
meaning I'm some sort of alpha male. I make mistakes too and have
plenty of inadequacies)
Les Cargill
> On Nov 15, 3:28 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>> Nor will you find anything written by me, that implies
>>> that I do...unless you keep imagining that things like
>>> the word "proficient" appeared, even though they didn't.
>> Welcome to "alpha geek" culture since 1999. It's
>> right next door to the "angry Asian male" syndrome, an
>> artifact of transference. It'll be this way
>> until we have fembots...
>
> I have been nothing but polite and appreciative of your responses
> because up to the moment you've been nothing but the same to me Les.
This is true - and please hear me out. I'll do the best I can to
explain below.
> There was no justification for you to inject these sorts of comments
> other than your own case of "alphageek" syndrome. My comment to Jim
> was solely in response to his constant hounding that usually has
> little to do with the thread discussion. Jim's mode of discussion with
> me of late seems to be a repetitive wagging finger rather than any
> attempt to inject facts that relate to the topic thread. He seems like
> a likable well meaning sort but it can get annoying when someone
> constantly attempts to crucify you.
>
Make of it what you will - that was what I saw. I don't mean to
be overly critical, but you were quite impatient with "why, anybody
who doesn't use OO techniques is an ignoramus" sounding
rhetoric. When the truth is, it's not the sort of thing "civilians"
can understand easily. Even specialists spend decades learning
the finer points.
Perhaps my comment was inappropriate. But my training is to
try to treat people who are nonspecialists with as much
helpful respect as possible.
And, to be fair, I kinda wasn't even talking about *you* in
specific - you really just drew me off on others I have seen who
were much less patient than even yourself. You only showed a hint
of something I've seen others become quite irascible about.
So I probably overreacted. It's a strange phenomenon, and I can't
claim to fully understand it, so errors are likely.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Jim Klein
> > > > > Can we please move back to AI...
>
> > > > Goddammittohell...this is why you're so frustrating.
>
> > > > Did Rod not address this, several times already?
>
> > > > I don't see how you can be a programmer, if you
> > > > never listen at all.
>
> > > And I can't see how you seem to be suggesting you are a proficient
> > > Paradox user
>
> > What...are you trying to make my point, that you
> > simply don't listen? I made no such suggestion
> > and I wrote nothing even remotely close to "proficient."
>
> "Either put up what I wrote that was false so I can retract and
> correct, or shut the fuck up already"
>
> I see.
No, you don't see. You don't see that you wanted to
"move back to AI" when Rod said repeatedly that he
had no interest whatsoever in discussing that with
you. First you make a huge faux pas with your
guesses about his expertise and CV. No apology
from you, just weak rationalizations. Alright,
who cares? Obviously, Rod survived the ordeal.
But then, you not only fail to honor his desires
clearly expressed, but pretend that it is /you/
who are staying on topic. It's either funny or
tragic...that depends on whether it's someone
else or you.
> So you feel I've misinterpreted something about your views and
> are now trying to clarify.
I don't give a shit how you interpret my words.
Don't get me wrong---I try to help and I always
prefer success over failure. When other people
are involved, one must deal with both.
Why don't you give people the benefit of the doubt
and assume they mean what they say? I wrote
exactly, ""Either put up what I wrote that was
false so I can retract and correct..." and you
charge that I'm worried about you misrepresenting
my views.
I'm worried about what I said I was worried about--
that maybe I wrote something false. If it ever
happens, I'll be sure to retract and correct.
> I understand completely.
I'm sure you understand something; I'm just
bewildered as to what!
jk
Jim Klein
> There is certainly no absolute agreed
> upon definition of OOP (thus gray areas exist where it can be argued
> either way) there is still a range of sorts where something can be
> called not OOP.
What...is this you explaining how you don't rely
on consensus?
I harp on the point because it's important. You were
obviously taught an upside-down epistemology.
You learn how words are used, and you use that
to discover how the world is. This is very convenient
for the folks that taught you, but doesn't tell you
very much about the world itself.
Much of this, and I'll be sending you a bill.
jk
Potroast
While I think it most instances it would probably be the appropriate
choice for a startup I see nothing holy about OOP. For instance c is
still very useful and common due to speed for things like device
drivers, compilers, etc. Or if some organization's business rules had
a library that includes decades of stable code behind them I would
probably strongly advise them against jumping to C++ (if the only
reason is to be modern). When I worked at IBM they were still using
Cobol, IMS queues, AS/400, VM, MVS, and OS/2. All basically obsolete
technologies-except that there is so much rock stable code running off
that technology it can be costly and risky to migrate off it
(especially for banks)
I don't see any technology as an alter to be prayed to. What matters
is the goal achieved and at what cost. In corporate environments were
certain standards are in place though it can be very costly to branch
out into different methodologies and technology (even if it
superficially might seem the same or even better). Some programmers
have a bad habit of trying to match their personal skills or
technology that interests them... to a business need. IMO it's that
sort of branching of technology that's the chief vector to bloat ware
(and thus added costs)
Unless one is a contractor who doesn't care about his employer once
the job is done, application development needs to be looked in a
holistic manner that considers the environment it will be subsequently
supported in. (both in terms of platform and programmers) If the
department or application environment uses OOP (or even a specific
language), then it can be a bad business decision to break the mold.
It's not a matter of if C or C++ is better in any given instance.
It's more akin to having a styleguide where instead of every
application using hungarian notation, each uses camel case
differently. It adds unnecessary confusion, makes it more difficult
for programmers to move from one application to another, and makes
problems less likely to be solved quickly.
Another potential drawback of any sort of programming language
divergence is that few programmers are experts in more than one API
(which can take years to learn fluently). When a programmer doesn't
know their way around one they tend to either waste an enormous amount
of reading up on it... or try to reinvent the wheel. (and more likely
to be reinvented in less stable form than the API had to offer).
As for your other point...
I'm familiar with the unpleasant behavior you are referring to. The
"talk down" or speak to someone as if they are senile simply because
someone happens to have training in some narrow corner of computing.
(which is unusually common in computing for some reason) This is
especially true of some techies behavior to non-techies. I see it like
a dentist giving a client lip because they might not be familiar with
dentistry or a cardiologist being rude to a "simple minded"
nephrologist . It's extremely unprofessional and childish.
That wasn't what my reply to Jim was about though (although I can see
why you might have thought that because you don't know the history or
much about me). It's nothing personal against Jim my "hit back"
principle. If anyone comes after me. I go after them (or just stop
replying until they cool down). It's extremely easy to find fault in
anyone (including myself of course) I much prefer a polite exchange of
ideas rather than get caught up in the game of trying to publicly
humiliate the other guy as an imbecile. Not only is it much more
pleasant but far more useful as well. While I see my principle as
equitable, when I use it I realize other principles could use
improvement to put me in such a position. (that isn't to say the other
guy isn't being rude though)
In any case, water under the bridge Les. Thread closed. Memory
released. It's a rare man on public Internet forum willing to admit
these kinds of mistakes. I fall into the trap of negative stereotyping
based on a few words that set me off sometimes too. Nice chatting with
you. Hopefully we can pick it up again some time. I have to take a
break to get some work done but I'll be sure to read any response.
Potroast
> On Nov 16, 2:04 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is certainly no absolute agreed
> > upon definition of OOP (thus gray areas exist where it can be argued
> > either way) there is still a range of sorts where something can be
> > called not OOP.
>
> What...is this you explaining how you don't rely
> on consensus?
I never said I was absolute about the matter. I even provided you an
examples where the voting approach makes sense to me.
Let's take AC current. Does it really matter if we chose a 100,110, or
220V standard? 50 or 60 Hz? Not particularly but there has to be
consensus as to which it will be. If you think consensus in that
instance doesn't matter visit Japan or Europe and plug something into
the wall.
Potroast
"On Wednesday, the tech giant plans to announce at the SC09 conference
a joint project with researchers from five universities and the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that it calls "Blue Matter," a
software platform for neuroscience modeling. Pulling together archived
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan data and assembling it on a Blue
Gene P Supercomputer, IBM has simulated a brain with 1 billion neurons
and 10 trillion synapses--about the equivalent of a cat's cortex, or
4.5% of a human brain."
"The brain is proof that this kind of computer can be built. We just
need to reverse engineer it."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/18/ibm-brain-science-technology-breakthroughs-
supercomputer.html
Ray
news:735e0f26-d422-47a6...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> "The brain is proof that this kind of computer can be built. We just
> need to reverse engineer it."
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/18/ibm-brain-science-technology-breakthroughs-
> supercomputer.html
Total BS.
No, I don't want to elaborate.
Sorry.
Ray
Potroast
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:735e0f26-d422-47a6...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "The brain is proof that this kind of computer can be built. We just
> > need to reverse engineer it."
>
> > supercomputer.html
>
> Total BS.
> No, I don't want to elaborate.
> Sorry.
>
> Ray
"Blue Matter" isn't intended to be an AI. It's just meant as a
research tool. (although IBM hope to gather some sort of insight into
AI too) Granted his choice of "proof" was probably not the best
selection of words. More like "evidence".