Intelligent System Directors
Coordi
A Human is an Intelligent System
A Business is an Intelligent System (multiprocessor)
A Government is an Intelligent System
A Society is an Intelligent System
The Human Race is an Intelligent System
The ten Directors of an Intelligent System apply equally well to all ranges
of Intelligent Systems. They are in the domain of Knowledge.
An Intelligent System is a system of Knowledge and Understanding.
C
Gordon D. Pusch
> A Microbe is an Intelligent System
> A Human is an Intelligent System
> A Business is an Intelligent System (multiprocessor)
> A Government is an Intelligent System
> A Society is an Intelligent System
> The Human Race is an Intelligent System
Any definition of ``Intelligent System'' that is so elastic that it can
be stretched to include _governments_ (let alone ``societies'' or species)
is obviously so ill-defined that it is utterly useless.
(OTOH, at least he was perceptive enough to lump ``governments'' and
``microbes'' into the same class...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Luke Kaven
given some good reasons to believe in the "group mind hypothesis". You
might disagree, but there is a growing body of literature in support of
this, and you might prefer to disagree based upon an understanding of that
literature. You might start with Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson.
Peter Godfrey Smith's "Environmental Complexity Thesis" about the origin and
function of mind supplies some other notions in support of group minds,
although PGS is somewhat guarded himself about it.
Gordon D. Pusch <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1d7gkh...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
> "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
Gordon D. Pusch
> Over the last few years, work on the notion of "group level selection" has
> given some good reasons to believe in the "group mind hypothesis". You
> might disagree,
Darned right! I have _never_ seen =ANY= evidence of a ``group mind;'' all
my personal experience indicates that groups are in fact ABYSMALLY STUPID,
and that ``intelligence'' adds in parallel the same way resistors do:
I.e., the sum of two wits equals a halfwit, and the intelligence of a group
is always smaller than the intelligence of the STUPIDEST member within it!
> but there is a growing body of literature in support of this, and you
> might prefer to disagree based upon an understanding of that literature.
There is a huge body of ``literature'' supporting the existence of UFOs,
alien abductions, free energy, fish falling from the sky, or any other
stupid idea you care to name --- so ``literature'' proves nothing.
Let those who believe in a ``group mind'' put forth a testable hypothesis
about some consequence of its existence, and then act like scientists and
attempt to falsify it. Until then, I will view any such notion as merely
a manifestation of the atavistic and destructive desire many humans seem
to feel that they must belong to (or be owned by) something ``bigger'' than
themselves --- e.g., a god, or a collectivist cause such as socialism ---
in order to see ``meaning'' in their lives. Such beliefs are RELIGIONS,
not science.
> You might start with Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. Peter Godfrey
> Smith's "Environmental Complexity Thesis" about the origin and function
> of mind supplies some other notions in support of group minds, although
> PGS is somewhat guarded himself about it.
As well he should be. It's a massively STUPID idea.
Coordi
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1vgubg...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
tsd
You seem to have defined (or done so through example) what and
"Intelligent System". But these are also examples of just 'systems'.
Define the difference between an system and an intelligent one? While your
at it define what a "director" as this seems to be the source of much
confusion. You might even tell us what publication you got your list form
so that we might have a pick at them as well.
alex w
Coordi
Intelligent System is that an intelligent system can do all the things that
a life form can do. Evolve, reproduce, create, invent, etc.. Intelligent
systems take advantage of sources of intelligence. A Director is a knowledge
base that directs the behavior of the system. A Director is a subdivision to
the total base of Knowledge of which Understanding operates. Environment and
Language are two of the Director databases that I gave you.
Knowledge of the Directors is my own personal property and has never been
published. I have known about them for over 20 years, I am getting old and
need to get them out to the world. Since knowledge of the directors directly
conflicts with common knowledge, it is not easy to present these findings. I
will do my best.
C
"tsd" <t...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100103...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
George Bajszar
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A Microbe is an Intelligent System
> A Human is an Intelligent System
> A Business is an Intelligent System (multiprocessor)
> A Government is an Intelligent System
> A Society is an Intelligent System
> The Human Race is an Intelligent System
>
So anything that follows rules is an intelligent system? Anything that
selects specific outputs based on specific inputs?
How about quarks, atoms, molecules, are they intelligent systems as
well, as they respond specifically to the presence of other particles?
Then everything is an intelligent system, even a piece of rock.
George Bajszar
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Coordi
that I mention do more than just follow rules. They evolve, reproduce,
invent, create, etc... These qualities don't really seem to me to apply to a
rock.
C
"George Bajszar" <gy...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8thot9$rce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Kelsey Bjarnason
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZuZK5.39006$bf.4...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> The difference between a dumb system like the AI folks build and an
> Intelligent System is that an intelligent system can do all the things
that
> a life form can do. Evolve, reproduce, create, invent, etc..
It would seem to follow, then, that a sterile person is not an intelligent
system. Hmm.
Coordi
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <xxkel...@xxtelusyy.net> wrote in message
news:Rt0L5.116818$47.16...@news.bc.tac.net...
Coordi
Intelligent System since the person still has the ability to attract
intelligent resources necessary for life.
C
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UL0L5.39032$bf.4...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Luke Kaven
> "Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> > Over the last few years, work on the notion of "group level selection"
has
> > given some good reasons to believe in the "group mind hypothesis". You
> > might disagree,
>
> Darned right! I have _never_ seen =ANY= evidence of a ``group mind;'' all
> my personal experience indicates that groups are in fact ABYSMALLY STUPID,
> and that ``intelligence'' adds in parallel the same way resistors do:
> I.e., the sum of two wits equals a halfwit, and the intelligence of a
group
> is always smaller than the intelligence of the STUPIDEST member within it!
This is the "I have never seen.." argument! In the best of cases, surely it
takes an intelligent group to make anything as complicated as a Boeing 747.
But this is not to deny that groups can be quite unintelligent --
nevertheless, one might argue that they are groups of lesser intelligence.
That doesn't seem to be a problem for the group mind hypothesis. I don't
exactly understand the ad hoc equation.
> > but there is a growing body of literature in support of this, and you
> > might prefer to disagree based upon an understanding of that literature.
>
> There is a huge body of ``literature'' supporting the existence of UFOs,
> alien abductions, free energy, fish falling from the sky, or any other
> stupid idea you care to name --- so ``literature'' proves nothing.
Right...and the group mind hypothesis as well as the theory of alien
abductions stands or falls partly on the strength of the arguments as
presented in the literature. The question was whether _you've_ read the
literature on philosophy of biology and whether you can respond to it. I
think we probably already agree about the literature on alien abductions.
> Let those who believe in a ``group mind'' put forth a testable hypothesis
> about some consequence of its existence, and then act like scientists and
> attempt to falsify it. Until then, I will view any such notion as merely
> a manifestation of the atavistic and destructive desire many humans seem
> to feel that they must belong to (or be owned by) something ``bigger''
than
> themselves --- e.g., a god, or a collectivist cause such as socialism ---
> in order to see ``meaning'' in their lives. Such beliefs are RELIGIONS,
> not science.
I don't think a thesis in metaphysics and epistemology is going to be
assimilated into Popperian empirical science, in spite or your demands, and
that you've got your methodological wires crossed here.
> > You might start with Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. Peter Godfrey
> > Smith's "Environmental Complexity Thesis" about the origin and function
> > of mind supplies some other notions in support of group minds, although
> > PGS is somewhat guarded himself about it.
>
> As well he should be. It's a massively STUPID idea.
This is the famous "is a massively STUPID idea" argument. You made up a
straw figure to burn. Why don't you just do a little exegesis? Otherwise,
I don't sense much of a challenge in this.
Gordon D. Pusch
> Does this mean that YOU are more Intelligent that Intel or Microsoft?
Of course --- anything with a brain is.
_Neither_ of those purely legal entities are capable of even a single thought,
since neither of them have consciousness, a brain, or even physical existence.
They are merely conceptual legal fictions that ``exist'' only on paper for
the purpose of tax and liability avoidance on the parts of their owners.
Only the individual humans who _work_ for the fictious legal entities Intel
and Micro$chlock (or rather, for their owners) are capable of thought ---
intelligent or otherwise. (I vote for ``otherwise'').
paul...@my-deja.com
systems? After all, computer systems are evolving, the configuration
of any comptuer system is the expression of a set of software,
computers are creating new data and inventing new algorithms...
Humans are involved in all of these processes, but our role is
decreasing over time. (First we code in binary, then in Fortran, then
object oriented technologies and software libriaries, component based
programming (like Java Beans, CORBA, COM) etc. Each step further
removed from the processes of programming...)
--Paul
Coordi
consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals. There is one of the
Directors of an Intelligent System that I have not named that contains the
knowledge of this awareness. It is only when you can absorb the true nature
of an Intelligent System that it becomes obvious that the boundary between
individuals and groups virtually disappears.
Would you please try to name the Director that I am referring to.
Thanks,
C
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1bsw3f...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
Coordi
Systems that I have witnessed in the AI community so far. CONGRATULATIONS
AND THANKS!!
Any system where humans are involved is an Intelligent System! You Said It!
Computers are simply the tools of humans, a human with an axe is an
Intelligent System.
Computers are functioning now to expand the memory capacity and speed of
communications of humans to vastly enhance the performance of human
Intelligent Systems.
I am sure that humans will never be able to create an intelligence that is
truly separate from themselves. This task would be the equivalent to
creating a true alien intelligence. Any computer intelligence that we ever
create will simply function as a supporting tool in a already existing human
intelligent system.
Good Going!
C
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tiqg1$klo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gordon D. Pusch
> Wrong, Super-Intelligent Systems like businesses and corporations do have
> a consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals.
This is a statement of religious faith, not a scientific statement.
What evidence do you have that ``businesses and corporations'' are
``superintelligent'' and have a ``consciousness'' or ``self-awareness'' ???
They certainly don't _behave_ in a ``superintelligent'' fashion. In fact,
they usually behave at best like greedy, shortsighted, spoiled little
children below the age of reason, whose `id' is totally unrestrained by
any trace of `superego' --- and at worst like a particularly malignant form
of cancerous growth.
The behavior of ``collectives'' is in fact usually the exact _OPPOSITE_
of intelligent: The higher rational and logical faculties of its members
are largely short-circuited by emotion and dominance-games, leaving only
purely ``reptilian brain'' functions behind --- predominantly negative ones,
like greed, arrogance, and laziness. (We call these functions ``politics.'')
Anyone who has ever had to deal with bureaucracy, serve on a committee,
watched C-SPAN in (in)action, or has been caught up in a rioting mob has
experienced just how abysmally stupid and irrational ``collective
intelligences'' are. The notion that a government or corporation is
``superintelligent'' is so ludicrous that I would fall down laughing
if I wasn't so nauseated by it...
paul...@my-deja.com
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> YES!, RIGHT ON ! The first indication of an understanding of
Intelligent
> Systems that I have witnessed in the AI community so far.
CONGRATULATIONS
> AND THANKS!!
>
> Any system where humans are involved is an Intelligent System! You
Said It!
>
> Computers are simply the tools of humans, a human with an axe is an
> Intelligent System.
>
> Computers are functioning now to expand the memory capacity and speed
of
> communications of humans to vastly enhance the performance of human
> Intelligent Systems.
>
> I am sure that humans will never be able to create an intelligence
that is
> truly separate from themselves. This task would be the equivalent to
> creating a true alien intelligence. Any computer intelligence that we
ever
> create will simply function as a supporting tool in a already
existing human
> intelligent system.
Never is a really long time. We have only spent a shade over 50 years
building computer systems, and yet we have already significantly
reduced our involvement in their construction and programming. Other
posts of mine point out that (without recognizing it) we are on the
path for constructing a genetic description for software
definition/deployment/configuration. Once computer systems can 1)
build themselves, and 2) configure themselves, what else prevents them
from obtaining at least the "microbe-like" level of intellegence?
If humans remain the chief mechanism for evolution for such systems for
a long while, that would not diminish their standing as independently
intellegent by your definition.
--Paul
Coordi
be superior to yourself, yuk.
C
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1zojme...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
Coordi
humans ever be totally independent from the intelligence of the organisms of
Wheat, Rice or Corn? It seems to me that all intelligence's are somehow
dependant on the others.
Hmmm
C
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tjohg$an9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eldan Goldenberg
simply insulting its critics. I would be interested to see if you could
actually refute what is being argued against you, rather than just responding
"yuk".
You have suddenly foisted onto a section of the AI community the suggestion
that we are all wrong about some fundamental issues. The way I see it that's
fair enough - we could be - but the onus is on you to convince us. Your
haughty approach and assumption that people who argue with you are just too
stupid to understand are not helping you to do so....
Gordon D. Pusch
> Independent Intelligence, ahhh now that is one that I need to work on. Could
> humans ever be totally independent from the intelligence of the organisms of
> Wheat, Rice or Corn? It seems to me that all intelligence's are somehow
> dependant on the others.
The ``intelligence'' of wheat, rice or corn? Yeah. Right.
How does the ``intelligence'' of wheat, rice or corn compare to the
``intelligence'' of whatever hallucinogenic substance you appear to
be smoking, snorting, mainlining, or however you take your drugs ???
(You are obviously high on _something_...)
Gordon D. Pusch
> WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could possible
> be superior to yourself, yuk.
I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in any way.
In fact, I see no evidence Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to a _slime mold_
in any way.
Coordi
idea of how to decode their DNA and make a plant out of it. I wish I could
find a plant that could teach me that. Maybe other humans will eventually
learn how and teach me.
C
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1wveqe...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
Coordi
begin to understand my approach to the AI community. Intelligence within a
system tends to lie dormant until triggered by a challenge. A challenge can
come in many forms, but the predicted result of the challenge is to gain the
Attention of the system. Real intelligence only begins to operate when it is
aroused.
BANG !! BANG!!
C
"Eldan Goldenberg" <eld...@cogs.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39FD7234...@cogs.susx.ac.uk...
Coordi
C
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1u29ue...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
Erik Max Francis
> Wrong, Super-Intelligent Systems like businesses and corporations do
> have a
> consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals.
Why, because you say so?
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ But tell me, who _are_ they, these wanderers ... ?
\__/ Rainer Maria Rilke
Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
A new, virtual planet, every day.
Erik Max Francis
> WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could
> possible
> be superior to yourself, yuk.
You did not address his question. Your asserting that something is so
does not make it so.
You'll have to start by giving us your definitions. Since not even
scientists in these fields can fully agree on them, good luck.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ The little I know, I owe to my ignorance.
\__/ Sacha Guitry
Crank Dot Net / http://www.crank.net/
Cranks, crackpots, kooks, & loons on the Net.
paul...@my-deja.com
and manage" amounts to intelligence. Call this "self organization"
intellegence. You can argue against that definition if you wish. For
example, using his definition, all living organisms have *some* level
of intelligence, and we don't end up all that more intelligent than
microbes.
We have been shooting for something that is more like us, self aware,
creative, talkative, and/or able to process within an abstract
context. Call this our "kind" of intellegence.
Is "self organization" intellegence a useful concept/goal? I think so,
because this "self organization" intellegence may be required before we
can implement something that has our "kind" of intellegence. Why?
Because how much of our "kind" of intellegence would humanity maintain
if they could not reproduce, organize, breath, walk, keep their
balance, eat, sleep, etc.? Clearly none, because humanity would die
off.
Likewise, if our computer systems can not "self organize", we may not
be able to build and maintain the computational structures required to
call these systems intellegent. We (as a CS industry) are, after all,
struggling to build, deploy, and maintain terribly simple (by
comparison to microbes) distributed applications.
It will be some achievement if our computer systems obtain the "self
organization" intellegence of wheat, rice or corn.
--Paul
Gordon D. Pusch
> In many ways the Intelligence of plants is greater than mine. I have know
> idea of how to decode their DNA and make a plant out of it.
The decoding of DNA into proteins is a purely mechanistic biochemical process
involving no trace of anything resembling ``intelligence.''
Your use of the word ``intelligence'' is so broad and vague that you apply it
to absolutely everything --- and have therefore described absolutely nothing.
You might as well say ``god did it.''
> I wish I could find a plant that could teach me that. Maybe other humans
> will eventually learn how and teach me.
It's already mostly understood. Pick up any modern textbook on molecular biology,
if you're really serious about knowing, and not just blowing smoke (or whatever
drug it is that you're doing).
paul...@my-deja.com
gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Wrong, Super-Intelligent Systems like businesses and corporations
do have
> > a consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals.
>
> This is a statement of religious faith, not a scientific statement.
>
> What evidence do you have that ``businesses and corporations'' are
> ``superintelligent'' and have a ``consciousness'' or ``self-
awareness'' ???
If I read Coordi right (and he can correct me if I am wrong), the
definition of intellegence he is discussing is that of the abilities of
these groups to organize, provide direction over time, identify and
achieve goals, etc. There are many concepts discussed in the
literature concerning institutional memory, coorperate culture, group
dynamics, etc. I would be amazed if you were completely unaware of any
of these.
Even Geneisis (from roughly 1400 BC) refers to this concept in the
story of the Tower of Babble. And here too are references to what such
groups can accomplish above and beyond what individuals can do alone.
I think you are arguing against a line of thought that clearly runs
through all the literature of recorded history.
--Paul
Erik Max Francis
> Independent Intelligence, ahhh now that is one that I need to work on.
> Could
> humans ever be totally independent from the intelligence of the
> organisms of
> Wheat, Rice or Corn? It seems to me that all intelligence's are
> somehow
> dependant on the others.
You are babbling incoherently.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Not bad from a girl from the gutter like me
\__/ Kina
REALpolitik / http://www.realpolitik.com/
Get your own customized newsfeed online in realtime ... for free!
Erik Max Francis
> In many ways the Intelligence of plants is greater than mine.
You know, I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on that one.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ I like young girls. Their stories are shorter.
\__/ Thomas McGuane
Physics reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/
A physics reference.
Coordi
"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:39FDA1B3...@alcyone.com...
> Coordi wrote:
>
> > Wrong, Super-Intelligent Systems like businesses and corporations do
> > have a
> > consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals.
>
> Why, because you say so?
>
C
Coordi
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tk7q5$npk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <m1zojme...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com>,
> gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> > "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Wrong, Super-Intelligent Systems like businesses and corporations
> do have
> > > a consciousness and self-awareness just like individuals.
> >
> > This is a statement of religious faith, not a scientific statement.
> >
> > What evidence do you have that ``businesses and corporations'' are
> > ``superintelligent'' and have a ``consciousness'' or ``self-
> awareness'' ???
>
> If I read Coordi right (and he can correct me if I am wrong), the
> definition of intellegence he is discussing is that of the abilities of
> these groups to organize, provide direction over time, identify and
> achieve goals, etc.
That is True!
There are many concepts discussed in the
> literature concerning institutional memory, coorperate culture, group
> dynamics, etc. I would be amazed if you were completely unaware of any
> of these.
>
I am quite aware but it is all nonsense because they didn't understand the
basic principles of intelligent systems.
> Even Geneisis (from roughly 1400 BC) refers to this concept in the
> story of the Tower of Babble. And here too are references to what such
> groups can accomplish above and beyond what individuals can do alone.
>
> I think you are arguing against a line of thought that clearly runs
> through all the literature of recorded history.
>
> --Paul
>
The AI community has created a Tower of Babble!! I intend to distroy it by
presenting the truth about intelligent systems.
C
>
>
Erik Max Francis
> No, its because it is so. It is called a self-evident truth.
It sure isn't called science. You're wasting our time.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ 'Tis man's to fight, but Heaven's to give success.
\__/ Homer
blackgirl international / http://www.blackgirl.org/
The Internet resource for black women.
Rich Cooper
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote
> Don't be dense. Coordi is claiming that the ability to "self organize
> and manage" amounts to intelligence. Call this "self organization"
> intellegence. You can argue against that definition if you wish. For
> example, using his definition, all living organisms have *some* level
> of intelligence, and we don't end up all that more intelligent than
> microbes.
Certainly the ability to acquire experience is one necessary part
of intelligence. Another part is the ability to improve some "performance"
measure based on the acquired experience. I consider Wheat, Rice or
Corn to be learning because of the mechanics of evolution. The
performance measure is survivability, and the genome is what records
experience. From that point of view, every life form on earth
has some degree of intelligence.
The next level of intelligence could be sensitivity to the environment.
Most plants have various kinds of sensitivities to light, moisture, toxins,
infections, and so on. That gradient makes them a little more
intelligent than the less sensitive plants, such as yeast.
By selecting a set of postulates about what makes an intelligent system,
we could argue about an ontology of intelligent life forms. Each
postulate would identify some survival value, and would correspond
to some life form we can identify.
Next, we could look for the genes in each of those life forms. By
studying which genes or gene combinations express each level of
intelligence, we might be able to reach some serious scientific way
to define each significant part of the ontology.
> We have been shooting for something that is more like us, self aware,
> creative, talkative, and/or able to process within an abstract
> context. Call this our "kind" of intellegence.
Yes, though we haven't been able to communicate with any of the other
forms of intelligence. The published experiments on language in apes,
bonobos and chimpanzees is pretty unconvincing to anyone except
journalists. If we can't communicate with our neighbors, how can
we communicate with computers?
We will have to build our software in our own images to be able to
communicate with it. So the anthropomorhic 'agents' can convince
us there is reality in their actions.
> Is "self organization" intellegence a useful concept/goal? I think so,
> because this "self organization" intellegence may be required before we
> can implement something that has our "kind" of intellegence.
Biological self organization is a daily operation. The DNA program
present at conception directs every cell in the body as it progresses
throughout an organism's lifetime. Our intelligent programs will
absolutely have to self organize to be successful.
>Why?
> Because how much of our "kind" of intellegence would humanity maintain
> if they could not reproduce, organize, breath, walk, keep their
> balance, eat, sleep, etc.? Clearly none, because humanity would die
> off.
>
> Likewise, if our computer systems can not "self organize", we may not
> be able to build and maintain the computational structures required to
> call these systems intellegent. We (as a CS industry) are, after all,
> struggling to build, deploy, and maintain terribly simple (by
> comparison to microbes) distributed applications.
No, the funding we use to build our programs has economic strings
attached. There is a mandatory goal in every development project
that the company make money, or a government grant project must
properly meet its stated goal. To self assemble, a program will have to
go in blind directions for many years. Only a mad scientist would
fund something like that. Maybe one of us? You would have to
give a large part of your life to it.
paul...@my-deja.com
>
> > WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could
possible
> > be superior to yourself, yuk.
>
> I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in any
way.
Interesting. To take that point of view, I can only assume you:
* have more money that Microsoft
* are able ship more products per year than Microsoft
* know more than Microsoft about COM, XML, .Net, etc.
* are able to beat the whole lot, by your self, at soccer
* are able to raise more money for chairty
* are able to dontate more time to charity
* know more than MSNBC about current events
* are able to put in 1000's of man years of work per year
And you still have time to post to newsgroups ;-) I am impressed!
I understand your objections, but Coordi's point was reasonably stated,
and your response is merely emotional, not rational. Groups are
often "superior" to individuals... How else are we able to develop
technologies? We are able because groups outlast individuals, and are
(in many obvious ways) superior to individuals.
You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions. And
of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
ability to post. Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
operating systems, etc. Suppose all of Microsoft's efforts had faild
at that momement of your posting (by some freak chance). Sadly, we
would not have had the pleasure to read about your absolute superiority
to all things Microsoft.
[snip of rants of slime mold's superiority to Microsoft]
--Paul
paul...@my-deja.com
You should read the Genisis reference... The Tower represented the
ability of people to develop too fast, and reach the heavens. The
destruction of the tower and the confusion caused by God's introduction
of many languages broke up humanity into many groups (separated by
language) to prevent their rapid advancement.
I don't think this is want you intend to do.
-- Paul
Coordi
scientific grounds or otherwise? Is it not a self-evident truth.
C
"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:39FDAE99...@alcyone.com...
Coordi
> You should read the Genisis reference... The Tower represented the
> ability of people to develop too fast, and reach the heavens. The
> destruction of the tower and the confusion caused by God's introduction
> of many languages broke up humanity into many groups (separated by
> language) to prevent their rapid advancement.
>
> I don't think this is want you intend to do.
>
> -- Paul
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Actually Tower of Bable was your words, I just call it Bullshit! I intend to
rub the faces of the AI bullshitters in their own bullshit.
C
Coordi
I haven't given out.. Somewhere in all the words you said is the name of one
of the Directors.
C
"Rich Cooper" <richc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tkc3u$d80$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
paul...@my-deja.com
> > Likewise, if our computer systems can not "self organize", we may
not
> > be able to build and maintain the computational structures required
to
> > call these systems intellegent. We (as a CS industry) are, after
all,
> > struggling to build, deploy, and maintain terribly simple (by
> > comparison to microbes) distributed applications.
>
> No, the funding we use to build our programs has economic strings
> attached. There is a mandatory goal in every development project
> that the company make money, or a government grant project must
> properly meet its stated goal. To self assemble, a program will have
to
> go in blind directions for many years. Only a mad scientist would
> fund something like that. Maybe one of us? You would have to
> give a large part of your life to it.
Hmmmm. We need some clarification here. Can we separate the concepts
of (evolution/development) from (genetic exchange/self organization)?
Let's try.
First, self organization does not require evolution.
In fact, evolution is very rare, since changes tend to destroy, not
help, organisms. Same thing with computer systems, since new code
tends to be more buggy than established code.
In biological organisms, groups of organisms select for the best set of
traits for their offspring, because organisms that don't do this die
off. When developing software, the best set of libraries, operating
systems, hardware, services are selected for use by an application. In
both cases, this effort can be more considered organization rather than
evolution.
Computer systems always seem to involve coding. But the goals are to
reduce this over time. Component based programming, OO, etc. all seek
to reuse and reorganize existing code, and limit new code.
The economic strings on development merely represent the selection
pressures on the software we are developing. That software can
ultimately be combined in new and different ways. The need to develop
self organization is independent from the requirements of development
--Paul
George Bajszar
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you will study my list carefully you will see that the list of
systems
> that I mention do more than just follow rules. They evolve, reproduce,
> invent, create, etc... These qualities don't really seem to me to
apply to a
> rock.
To me intelligence refers to the ability levels of learning and
adjusting to new environments. To me an intelligent system is a system
that can learn and adjust to changes. A single microbe cannot learn or
adjust to new environments, so it is not intelligent. A business is no
other than a group of people, so yes, a business is an intelligent
system.
George Bajszar
paul...@my-deja.com
That is harsh, and I fail to understand why you would care, even if the
ideas of AI as a group were completely useless. (I am not sure they
are.) I am interested in an explaination of what you mean by Directors
and your ideas in general. I am interested in self organization, and I
am willing to consider such abilities as a form of intellegence (But I
have not fully bought into this view).
The insults, OTOH, are one dimensional and boring.
--Paul
Reed Ulvestad
> In article <m1u29ue...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com>,
> gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> > "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could
> possible
> > > be superior to yourself, yuk.
> >
> > I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in any
> way.
>
> Interesting. To take that point of view, I can only assume you:
>
> * have more money that Microsoft
> * are able ship more products per year than Microsoft
> * know more than Microsoft about COM, XML, .Net, etc.
> * are able to beat the whole lot, by your self, at soccer
> * are able to raise more money for chairty
> * are able to dontate more time to charity
> * know more than MSNBC about current events
> * are able to put in 1000's of man years of work per year
>
Ignoring for the moment the fact that (as stated earlier) MS or any other
business is simply a ficticious legal entity created to simplify rules of
social interaction and semantics, the fact is that even though MS may have
all of these knowledges, the indivduals within the group who have any
specific knowledge are going to be far superior. For example, compare
trying to get help from tech support with getting help directly from the
_individual_ expert. So now it comes down to a question of quality vs.
quantity. Personally, I feel that someone who is an expert in a small
number of domains is usually more intelligent that someone who knows a
little bit about everything, but that is just my opinion. Maybe someone can
prove that quantity is better than quality.
> And you still have time to post to newsgroups ;-) I am impressed!
>
> I understand your objections, but Coordi's point was reasonably stated,
> and your response is merely emotional, not rational. Groups are
> often "superior" to individuals... How else are we able to develop
> technologies? We are able because groups outlast individuals, and are
> (in many obvious ways) superior to individuals.
There are other (more efficient) ways to preserve knowledge. Anything from
carvings on cave walls to DVDs preserve knowledge and only a few of them
really *require* a group to create.
>
> You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
> write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions. And
> of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
> ability to post. Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
> engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
> operating systems, etc. Suppose all of Microsoft's efforts had faild
> at that momement of your posting (by some freak chance). Sadly, we
> would not have had the pleasure to read about your absolute superiority
> to all things Microsoft.
You provide a nice list of intelligent individuals, but value of the
collection is rarely the sum of the parts. I would add a couple more
comments, but I get so sick of the pointless debates about the merits or
flaws of one particular company.
[snip of snip]
> --Paul
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Reed L. Ulvestad
Hyperion Technologies, Inc.
re...@hyperiontech.com
Raphael Jolly
>
> OOOOHhhh,, I like you,, and you actually mentioned one of the Directors that
> I haven't given out.. Somewhere in all the words you said is the name of one
> of the Directors.
performance ?
paul...@my-deja.com
So, you don't think bacteria are able to adjust (adapt) to new
enviornments? Respond to stimuli? Self organize? Reconfigure their
genetic makeup?
Your comment about a single microbe doesn't get you an out. Bacteria
are viewed as immortal. They are single cells that divide continuously
forever. You don't become a different person because your cells
divide, nor do they. Even if a group of cells are required to
demonstrate intellegence with bacteria, you also fail to demonstrate
why microbes are not intellegent by your own definition.
--Paul
Coordi
Sorry for being harsh but sometimes harsh is the only way to communicate
clearly using this media.
I find it absolutely facinating that the AI community has almost completely
avoided the study of Intelligent Systems. As far as that goes no other field
of science has studied them either. I think humans have an aversion to
seeing the two words together because they somehow strike too close to home.
My AI Challenge to see if anyone could name one of the Directors that I
didn't provide has yielded great insight into the thinking of the AI
community, of which this newsgroup is a very small subset, I am sure. It
would seem to me that Intelligent Systems as intelligent as the ones in this
newsgroup could identify the forces that effect their lives. The Intelligent
System Directors are universal and Global in their scope. They apply equally
to all life forms, groups, and even socieites. I am amazed that humans have
come this far without identifying them.
I think knowledge of the Directors is very valuable and important knowledge.
I don't want to give it away freely because of this value. I want the
recipients to have worked a bit with their minds to either discover the
Directors on their own or convince me that they are deserving of that
knowledge and it should therefore be given to them.
Does this help?
C
Coordi
Archie Campbell
that
> I haven't given out.. Somewhere in all the words you said is the name of
one
> of the Directors.
Series of games by Sierra, search for self-organization! (4-5)
Object for hypocritical destruction (5,2,8)
Adverb, adjective, insult, almost twisting in the wind. (4)
paul...@my-deja.com
> Ignoring for the moment the fact that (as stated earlier) MS or any
other
> business is simply a ficticious legal entity created to simplify
rules of
> social interaction and semantics, the fact is that even though MS may
have
> all of these knowledges, the indivduals within the group who have any
> specific knowledge are going to be far superior. For example, compare
> trying to get help from tech support with getting help directly from
the
> _individual_ expert. So now it comes down to a question of quality
vs.
> quantity. Personally, I feel that someone who is an expert in a small
> number of domains is usually more intelligent that someone who knows a
> little bit about everything, but that is just my opinion. Maybe
someone can
> prove that quantity is better than quality.
Okay, let us refer to some complicated product or process as a
technology, for the purpose of this discussion.
No *individual* is able to produce and deploy on their own any
sufficently complex technology. It nearly *always* takes a group, and
this becomes more true as our technologies advance. I would agree that
an individual can understand more about a given aspect of a technology
relative to the group, but the fact remains that a group is required to
develop and deploy a technology.
If intelligence is defined (as the origional post hints) as self
organization, then a group clearly defines an intelligence distinct
from any individual.
>
> > And you still have time to post to newsgroups ;-) I am impressed!
> >
> > I understand your objections, but Coordi's point was reasonably
stated,
> > and your response is merely emotional, not rational. Groups are
> > often "superior" to individuals... How else are we able to develop
> > technologies? We are able because groups outlast individuals, and
are
> > (in many obvious ways) superior to individuals.
>
> There are other (more efficient) ways to preserve knowledge.
Anything from
> carvings on cave walls to DVDs preserve knowledge and only a few of
them
> really *require* a group to create.
hmmm. Methods you suggest do indeed preserve knowledge, but if they are
only used by a single individual, what use are they? They are instead
methods for individuals to contribute to a group separated by time.
You are still describing ways groups are able to organize themselves.
> >
> > You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
> > write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions.
And
> > of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
> > ability to post. Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
> > engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
> > operating systems, etc. Suppose all of Microsoft's efforts had
faild
> > at that momement of your posting (by some freak chance). Sadly, we
> > would not have had the pleasure to read about your absolute
superiority
> > to all things Microsoft.
>
> You provide a nice list of intelligent individuals, but value of the
> collection is rarely the sum of the parts. I would add a couple more
> comments, but I get so sick of the pointless debates about the merits
or
> flaws of one particular company.
The whole point here is that the value of the collection is greater
than the sum of its parts, not less. I am no great fan of Microsoft,
but they do represent this effect in spades. How many other groups of
30,000 or so people have generated so many products, money, news
stories, anger, joy, etc.?
Erik Max Francis
> Can you deny that Environment is a director of intelligent systems? On
> scientific grounds or otherwise? Is it not a self-evident truth.
You seem to think anything you think of is a self-evident truth.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Guided by the blue light that takes you away / I'm on my way home
\__/ Neneh Cherry
paul...@my-deja.com
>
> > In many ways the Intelligence of plants is greater than mine. I
have know
> > idea of how to decode their DNA and make a plant out of it.
>
> The decoding of DNA into proteins is a purely mechanistic biochemical
process
> involving no trace of anything resembling ``intelligence.''
Are you kidding? You have one set of DNA, and that one set is used to
differentiate into the 1 trillion cells for the average adult. Somehow
that roughly 1 GB definition in DNA results in all the organs and
systems that constitute a human being.
Nothing resembling "intelligence" indeed! I am not sure I agree with
Coordi either, but there is nothing vague about the "intelligence"
behind the transcription of DNA into configured cells.
> Your use of the word ``intelligence'' is so broad and vague that you
apply it
> to absolutely everything --- and have therefore described absolutely
nothing.
>
> You might as well say ``god did it.''
>
> > I wish I could find a plant that could teach me that. Maybe other
humans
> > will eventually learn how and teach me.
>
> It's already mostly understood. Pick up any modern textbook on
molecular biology,
> if you're really serious about knowing, and not just blowing smoke
(or whatever
> drug it is that you're doing).
You really like drugs...
As far as "mostly understood" goes, we are indeed leaarning a great
deal about/from molecular biology. So exactly what *is* your objection
to applying what we learn there to AI? It's too easy? Seems like an
odd complaint.
Kent Paul Dolan
>"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes utter nonsense:
>> A Microbe is an Intelligent System <--- obvious only to another microbe
>> A Human is an Intelligent System <--- provide _two_ examples, to each
of which no one would raise
objection, both satisfying the
_same_ definition of "Intelligent
System"
>> A Business is an Intelligent System <--- provide one working example
>> (multiprocessor) since, say, 1400 AD
>> A Government is an Intelligent System <--- provide one working example, ever
>> A Society is an Intelligent System <--- provide one working example, ever
>> The Human Race is an Intelligent System <--- provide one working example, ever
>Any definition of ``Intelligent System'' that is so elastic that it can
>be stretched to include _governments_ (let alone ``societies'' or species)
>is obviously so ill-defined that it is utterly useless.
>(OTOH, at least he was perceptive enough to lump ``governments'' and
>``microbes'' into the same class...)
At the cost of profoundly insulting the microbes.
Cheers,
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could
> possible be superior to yourself, yuk.
I cannot speak for Gordon, but from my position at the top of the food
chain, I fail to see that superior entity on any visible horizon. With
Gordon, I find the evidence of missing intelligence in the entities you
name to far outweigh anything indicating that they contain
intelligence, ever have, or ever will.
There is no _hatred_ involved, why hate what I don't believe could in
any way recognize that hatred? Nor is there any blindness at work,
just the clear sight which a little experience in the real world
lends.
This experience tells me that the universe is unowned and undesigned,
and that lesser entities clamoring for the mantle of "intelligent" have
a long way to go to get close to humans (and abstract entities haven't
crossed the starting line), just as humans have a long way to go to get
anywhere close to deserving the mantle they have arrogated for lack of
meaningful competition.
There are certainly _humans_ superior to me, though I'd be amazed on my
knowledge of statistics if their number exceeded something in the low
six digits, but non-human entities? It is to laugh.
Persons who play mind games on the net definitely don't make that
cutoff point, by the way.
To consult "the literature" for good arguments contrary to mine, I
cannot recommend too highly Robert Persig's _Lila_.
To consult reality for good arguments supporting mine, I cannot
recommend too highly _praying_ to Microsoft for a bug free release of
some piece of software; it is a "well known fact" that neither asking
nor begging will suffice.
Followups sent to me. I refuse to cross post to groups I don't read,
and this discussion has no business taking place in the one I do.
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
The Krill _are_. It's plural. Unlike your brain cell.
-- smul...@cs.strath.ac.uk
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<xant...@well.com> <xant...@aztec.asu.edu> <kdo...@ebay.com>
Kent Paul Dolan
>When you begin to understand intelligence and intelligent systems you will
>begin to understand my approach to the AI community. Intelligence within a
>system tends to lie dormant until triggered by a challenge. A challenge can
>come in many forms, but the predicted result of the challenge is to gain the
>Attention of the system. Real intelligence only begins to operate when it is
>aroused.
And just when are we to expect yours to be aroused? I'm 56, I cannot
reliably expect to wait more than 34 years, to reach the age at which
my grandparents died, 90. Should I keep you on my list of
possible-distant-future-intelligence-acquiring-net-participants, or
just killfile you now as the "time wasting moron"(tm, Scott Adams) you
are at present?
Looking for a little guidance here,
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
You probably didn't notice, but during the past year, the moon slipped
about one and a half inches farther from the earth.
-- Joel Bloch, "Stardate", NPR
Kent Paul Dolan
>> WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could possible
>> be superior to yourself, yuk.
>I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in any way.
>In fact, I see no evidence Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to a _slime mold_
>in any way.
Well, I'll have to grant you, I've never heard about a slime mold in
the business of writing secure operating systems complaining about
hacker break-ins, so that's at least one point for the slime mold
team.
On the other hand, my good friend Terry claims on excellent authority
(he's a heavy contributor to email RFCs) that MS Outlook is the mail
agent you'd get if you set a bunch of chimpanzees at the task, and I
don't want to be quoted as saying that slime mold is/are superior in
intellect to chimpanzees (primate jingoism at work), so I'm at a bit of
loose ends here.
Maybe it's one of those "on average" thingies. There are a _lot_ of
MS employees who did _not_ work on Outlook, so maybe on average ...
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
"Does your neuron ever get lonely?"
-- James...@cas.honeywell.com
Kent Paul Dolan
> gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>> "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that could possible
>> > be superior to yourself, yuk.
>> I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in any way.
>Interesting. To take that point of view, I can only assume you:
> * have more money that Microsoft
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no money.
> * are able ship more products per year than Microsoft
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, ships no products.
> * know more than Microsoft about COM, XML, .Net, etc.
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no "knowldege".
> * are able to beat the whole lot, by your self, at soccer
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no corpus.
> * are able to raise more money for chairty
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, cannot "raise money" for
charity, but does include a marketing department whose members will
gladly sell you a spelling checker.
> * are able to dontate more time to charity
Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no concept of time, and thus
none to donate to charity, but does include a marketing department
whose members will gladly sell you a spelling checker.
> * know more than MSNBC about current events
MSNBC is an abstract legal entity compounded from two other abstract
legal entities, has no concept of "current events" because it has no
concept of "concept", not being self-aware.
> * are able to put in 1000's of man years of work per year
In terms of putting out source lines of delivered bug free code per
hour, I'm sure most individual readers of these newsgroups could exceed
all of the humans combined that make up the corporeal element of the
abstract entity which is Microsoft. I know I can, but then I've been
in the business a lot longer than MS, and made it a practice to learn
from my mistakes instead of amplifying them for future reuse.
>And you still have time to post to newsgroups ;-) I am impressed!
As do we all.
>I understand your objections, but Coordi's point was reasonably stated,
>and your response is merely emotional, not rational. Groups are
>often "superior" to individuals... How else are we able to develop
>technologies? We are able because groups outlast individuals, and are
>(in many obvious ways) superior to individuals.
But that is not at all what Coordi's claim was. He/she/it claimed that
abstract entities which might or might not be comprised of humans as one
component were "more intelligent" than individual humans, which is arrant
nonsense on its face. If you insist on arriving late at the discussion,
at least catch up before taking sides.
>You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
>write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions. And
>of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
... spell checker ...
>ability to post.
>Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
>engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
>operating systems, etc.
My are you naive. MS's main contribution to Internet standards has always
been obstructing them, since anything that gets standardized is something
that MS can no longer force on a captive user base in a proprietary format.
Consider the recent attempt to de-standardize Java for a real flavor of the
MS approach to industry standards. Java threatened to make software OS
independent, so MS stepped in immediately to break it as a standard.
MS's "contribution" to browsers has been adjudged an unlawful attempt to
maintain its monopoly in the OS market, since a standardized browser interface
makes the OS behind it pretty much irrelevant.
>Suppose all of Microsoft's efforts had faild
... spell checker ...
>at that momement of your posting (by some freak chance).
As a sometimes captive user of MS software since 1983, I can testify on my own
recognizance, that each and every one of MS's efforts have "failed" within my
definition of the term ("failed to work as designed and advertised"), and the
only thing that omitting MS from the marketplace since I first encountered its
products would have accomplished would have been to contribute to the health
and competitiveness of the computer hardware and software markets.
>Sadly, we
>would not have had the pleasure to read about your absolute superiority
>to all things Microsoft.
Only if you were so foolish as to choose a proprietary system over an open
system, but then why else would MS true believers exist except to promote
that attitude.
>[snip of rants of slime mold's superiority to Microsoft]
Too bad, the comparision was definitely superior to your posting as well.
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
Space is loaded with plankton. Ghost plankton, the plankton larvae of
gods and such.
-- Jeff Swanson <case...@pacbell.net>
Kent Paul Dolan
>Okay, let us refer to some complicated product or process as a
>technology, for the purpose of this discussion.
>No *individual* is able to produce and deploy on their own any
>sufficently complex technology.
But that is a circular argument, since "sufficiently complex
technology" is implicitly defined by you as "that which requires a
group to produce and deploy".
Code Domain Multiple Access (CDMA) encoding technology, used for cell
phones both terrestrial and ground to satellite took a group to put on
the street, but the entire mathematics that made it possible came out
of one mind, that of Dr. Viterbi (sp doubtful) at Qualcomm. After the
math was in place, the rest was "a mere matter of implementation".
There was nothing special about the rest of the group that could not
have been handled by a different group with the same mix of skills. It
is thus not "the group" that has some added intelligence; anyone who
has ever supervised a group knows that the contribution per individual
ramps down speedily as the number of individuals involved increases.
What increases the capabilities is not the membership but the
organization, and methods of organization are one of the few things
that humans have succeeded in binding across long stretches of time to
distant generations.
>It nearly *always* takes a group, and this becomes more true as our
>technologies advance.
I would dispute this as well. The more advanced the technology, the
harder any facet of it is to communicate between two humans, and the
easier instead it is for one human to acquire all needed knowledge to
make one step of advancement. Remember that the discussion here is
about _intelligence_, groups that merely add hands to hasten the task
do not thereby add intelligence. Thus most groups of graduate students
are extensions of the researcher, absorbing knowledge rather than
emitting it.
>I would agree that
>an individual can understand more about a given aspect of a technology
>relative to the group, but the fact remains that a group is required to
>develop and deploy a technology.
Yes, but this says nothing about the intelligence of the group as
compared to the individual, and in my own experience and that of some
others here, adding bodies subtracts intelligence.
>If intelligence is defined (as the origional post hints) as self
>organization, then a group clearly defines an intelligence distinct
>from any individual.
I guess you've never been a manager. "Self organization" as applied to
humans is an oxymoron.
>hmmm. Methods you suggest do indeed preserve knowledge, but if they are
>only used by a single individual, what use are they? They are instead
>methods for individuals to contribute to a group separated by time.
>You are still describing ways groups are able to organize themselves.
No, merely how one or a group of humans passes knowledge (binds time)
for a later or distant group of humans or individual human. None of
this implies a group that "organizes itself". There is such a thing
as "emergent behavior" (see for example my:
http://www.well.com/user/xanthian/public/code/StarLogo/TWhatAC/twhatac.slogo
a modification of the standard TERMiTES demo), but that is behavior built
into the system that is more complex than any of the rules of the system.
It arises not _from_ the intelligence of the participants, but, to all
intents and appearances, _despite_ it.
>The whole point here is that the value of the collection is greater
>than the sum of its parts, not less.
No, since the accomplishment per individual diminishes as the number of
individuals grows, of necessity your arithmetic is in error. They would
do better each taking on an individual project contributed separately to
the fund of human knowledge, than they do both in theory and in fact by
being part of an organization with no commitment to product quality.
>I am no great fan of Microsoft, but they do represent this effect in
>spades.
They represent several effects "in spades", but not the ones you intend
to convey.
> How many other groups of 30,000 or so people have generated so many products,
> money,
You have a funny set of values; I'd rather see contributions to humanity
than contributions to a single business entity's cash flow. Give me the
same number of workers striving to clear mine fields, and I know which
would be my heros.
> news stories, anger, joy, etc.?
Most of that news being about bugs, failures, breakins, disasters, standards
violations, interoperability problems, monopolistic activities, and on and on;
the only "joy" springing from Redmond belongs to the MS millionaires.
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
# Please try to quote no more than you need to show the context of your post.
# Blindly quoting people's signatures is a sign of dementia.
-- The .siggie of Simon Hosie <gum...@send.me.no.spam.at...clear.net.nz>,
posting in comp.theory.self-org-systems.
Kent Paul Dolan
> The AI community has created a Tower of Babble!! I intend to distroy it by
>presenting the truth about intelligent systems.
Having a teensy bit of difficulty keeping the old megalomania in check, are we?
Just curious,
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
"Ha!" said God, "I've got Jon Postel!"
"Yes," said the Devil, "but *I've* got
all the sysadmins!"
-- Matthew Skala
-- msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca
-- http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
Kent Paul Dolan
>Can you deny that Environment is a director of intelligent systems? On
>scientific grounds or otherwise? Is it not a self-evident truth.
Certainly I can deny it, since you haven't bothered to define your terms
and have been playing time wasting moron mind games instead for running
past 20 postings on the subject so far.
There _are_ _no_ self evident truths. Anyone claiming to have found one
merely thereby invites (and well deserves) ridicule.
There are, at least in mathematics, that least pragmatic of sciences,
statements so primitive that we take them for "axioms" or "postulates",
but we do this in the full knowledge that 1) our choice "feels good"
but is arbitrary, 2) we might well be proved wrong by future workers,
and 3) therefore "truth" has no relationship to what we are doing,
though "logical derivability" is quite important to us.
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
If you aren't going to shoot at Microsoft, don't expect people to
be as willing to hand you ammunition.
-- Terry Lambert <te...@whistle.com>
Luke Kaven
Reed Ulvestad <re...@hyperiontech.com> wrote in message
news:jDkL5.19$Bf7.17...@news.frii.net...
> <paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tkbv8$rmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <m1u29ue...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com>,
> > gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> > > "Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Ignoring for the moment the fact that (as stated earlier) MS or any other
> business is simply a ficticious legal entity created to simplify rules of
> social interaction and semantics, the fact is that even though MS may have
What makes you think that an economic agent is merely fictitious? Just
because there is a level of organization that is deliberately instituted
according to prescribed norms doesn't mean that it doesn't have a genuine
causal constituency. These social structures are agents in virtue of the
same facts that make us agents. The relevant facts have to do with
function, selection, and design -- not with DNA, protein molecules, and
neurons.
> all of these knowledges, the indivduals within the group who have any
> specific knowledge are going to be far superior. For example, compare
> trying to get help from tech support with getting help directly from the
> _individual_ expert. So now it comes down to a question of quality vs.
> quantity. Personally, I feel that someone who is an expert in a small
> number of domains is usually more intelligent that someone who knows a
> little bit about everything, but that is just my opinion. Maybe someone
can
> prove that quantity is better than quality.
>
> > And you still have time to post to newsgroups ;-) I am impressed!
> >
> > I understand your objections, but Coordi's point was reasonably stated,
> > and your response is merely emotional, not rational. Groups are
> > often "superior" to individuals... How else are we able to develop
> > technologies? We are able because groups outlast individuals, and are
> > (in many obvious ways) superior to individuals.
>
> There are other (more efficient) ways to preserve knowledge. Anything
from
> carvings on cave walls to DVDs preserve knowledge and only a few of them
> really *require* a group to create.
These things preserve information, not knowledge.
> > You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
> > write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions. And
> > of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
> > ability to post. Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
> > engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
> > operating systems, etc. Suppose all of Microsoft's efforts had faild
> > at that momement of your posting (by some freak chance). Sadly, we
> > would not have had the pleasure to read about your absolute superiority
> > to all things Microsoft.
>
> You provide a nice list of intelligent individuals, but value of the
> collection is rarely the sum of the parts. I would add a couple more
> comments, but I get so sick of the pointless debates about the merits or
> flaws of one particular company.
Putting mereology aside, it is unsurprising that many groups are outwardly
unintelligent and do not serve the needs of others -- they have some life of
their own and may exist only to perpetuate themselves. Yet there are a
number of groups that do produce things that are vastly more complex than
what could be produced by a single person. But that being said, I think it
is folly to try to do simple "intelligence-summing" as a way of explaining
the intelligence of groups. And it is also silly to insist that
intelligence always means "high intelligence"; low intelligence is
intelligence just the same. All that is required is some degree of
intentionality to be in the club. Under the view being espoused, anything
that has a proper function of any kind has intentionality, and thereby some
degree of mentality.
paul...@my-deja.com
> >> > WOW, you are totally blinded by your hatred of anything that
could possible
> >> > be superior to yourself, yuk.
>
> >> I see no evidence that Micro$chlock is ``superior'' to myself in
any way.
>
> >Interesting. To take that point of view, I can only assume you:
>
> > * have more money that Microsoft
>
> Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no money.
As a legal entity under the law, Microsoft certainly is able to hold a
bank account. And one of Microsoft's greatest assets is its employees,
that have legal agreements to work for that legal entity. Besides,
when one talks about Microsoft, one is talking about a more human
understanding of a group of people (like the church, or the Lion's
club, etc.) This isn't that confusing, and Microsoft was merely an
example raised by someone else in the thread.
You want to make your points about the worthlessness of group behavior
and self organization, forget Microsoft and illustrate it with the
group *you* most care about and are impressed with.
>
> But that is not at all what Coordi's claim was. He/she/it claimed
that
> abstract entities which might or might not be comprised of humans as
one
> component were "more intelligent" than individual humans, which is
arrant
> nonsense on its face. If you insist on arriving late at the
discussion,
> at least catch up before taking sides.
The discussion is about intellegence as "self organization". The side
arguement is about the lack of intelligence in groups. Achievements
are presented as an example illustrating the intelligent effects of
such "self organization".
>
> >You stand on the shoulders of teachers that taught you to read and
> >write. Researchers that provided technology, theory, inventions. And
> >of engieers that built and manage the Internet that provides you the
> ... spell checker ...
> >ability to post.
>
> >Some of those engineers are surely Microsoft
> >engineers who have contributed to Internet standards, browsers,
> >operating systems, etc.
>
> My are you naive. MS's main contribution to ...
[snip of anti Microsoft stuff]
Kent, there is an intellegence to groups. Take a car. Can you find me
someone that would know how to build one by themselves, with absolutely
no help from anyone else? Or a cell phone? Heck, how about a piece of
notebook paper?
At the very least we have to buy parts and supplies, but those come
from other people.
Forget Microsoft, and let us discuss Hulman & Company (since your
hatred of Microsoft seems to fry your ability to reason).
How many people does it take to make a can of Clabber Girl Baking
Powder, and how many pancakes, buscuits, cookies, and science projects
would we have missed out on without their contribution to baking? And
before you haul off and start ranting about "abstract legal entities",
I am talking about the group of people and resources referred to by
that company name, not just the paper filed with the state of Indiana.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> > * have more money that Microsoft
>> Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no money.
>As a legal entity under the law, Microsoft certainly is able to hold a
>bank account.
Buzzzt! Sorry, Microsoft the legal entity can do no such thing. If it
could, it could sign checks on that account, and it cannot, a human is
required _by_ _law_ to perform that function.
> And one of Microsoft's greatest assets is its employees, that have
> legal agreements to work for that legal entity.
Strangely enough, again, those agreements are not signed nor legally
signable by "Microsoft the legal entity", but by Jane H. Resources, the
human representitive authorized to sign employment contracts at
Microsoft.
I was raised by a lawyer, before arguing law with me, you might save us
all a little time by learning some.
>Besides,
>when one talks about Microsoft, one is talking about a more human
>understanding of a group of people (like the church, or the Lion's
>club, etc.) This isn't that confusing, and Microsoft was merely an
>example raised by someone else in the thread.
Except, of course, that the originator of this thread was explicitly
_not_ talking about the people comprising the group as individuals, but
the group as an abstract entity, and went far out of his/her/its way to
make that abundantly clear. I was sired by a general semanticist,
before splitting hairs on interpretations of wording with me, learn
_lots_ and _lots_ of English.
>You want to make your points about the worthlessness of group behavior
>and self organization, forget Microsoft and illustrate it with the
>group *you* most care about and are impressed with.
Why? Mine is not the task to support that side of the discussion, but
to deride it. Groups as abstract entities do not impress me. The
people gathered to comprise them often do, but that is not at all the
point at issue.
>> But that is not at all what Coordi's claim was. He/she/it claimed
>that
>> abstract entities which might or might not be comprised of humans as
>one
>> component were "more intelligent" than individual humans, which is
>arrant
>> nonsense on its face. If you insist on arriving late at the
>discussion,
>> at least catch up before taking sides.
>The discussion is about intellegence as "self organization". The side
>arguement is about the lack of intelligence in groups. Achievements
>are presented as an example illustrating the intelligent effects of
>such "self organization".
Sorry, the discussion has _nothing_ to do with self organization, I
tossed in the part about emergent behavior myself as part of an
example. The discussion, flawed as it is, is about some undefined
concept call Directors (of Artificial Intelligence, I think). Like I
said, catch up before choosing sides.
>Kent, there is an intellegence to groups. Take a car. Can you find me
>someone that would know how to build one by themselves, with absolutely
>no help from anyone else? Or a cell phone? Heck, how about a piece of
>notebook paper?
That it takes more than one hand to build a car doesn't make the
assembly line a self aware entity. Carry the present tendency to
replace humans with robots in assembly line manufacturing to its
logical conclusion (already accomplished in Japan for some assembly
lines) and notice how ridiculous your argument becomes; you now have an
"intelligent group entity" comprised of no intelligent or self aware
components whatsoever.
>At the very least we have to buy parts and supplies, but those come
>from other people.
I'm afraid you are adrift in a sea of your own confusion by now.
>Forget Microsoft, and let us discuss Hulman & Company (since your
>hatred of Microsoft seems to fry your ability to reason).
You haven't been taking careful notes.
I don't "hate" Microsoft. It is an abstract entity, incapable of
noticing my "hatred".
[It seems also incapable of responding to the many job
applications I've sent over the years offering to come in with
a large club and beat to death the entire QA staff and
management, as it happens, but that is probably a side issue
tangentially related to the fact that I am not a "Microsoft
millionaire" and very certainly never will be.]
I despise the products that come bearing the MS label, but that is just
the result of 18 years of being disappointed without a single exception
in my naive (and ever diminishing) expectation that what my employer
bought for me to use bearing that label would in fact work with some
acceptable degree of reliability and predictability.
>How many people does it take to make a can of Clabber Girl Baking ...
Do you have any idea how little I care to try to argue your side of the
issue for you?
Cheers!
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
I've heard that there's a delightful Yiddish word, "farpotchket" I
think, which means not simply broken, but broken because somebody tried
to fix it. The danger of the haphazard application of computer
technology to situations that are really getting along just fine in the
first place should be apparent to all.
-- Art Medlar <a...@big-ben.UUCP>
paul...@my-deja.com
(Actors? Parts? Roles?). I must say that this has been a rather fun
puzzle, and I think that Coordi has taken a very different view of
Intelligent Systems than I have. But different views are interesting
and fun, so let’s take a stab at this.
Start with the list:
(1) A Microbe is an Intelligent System.
A Human is an Intelligent System.
A Business is an Intelligent System (multiprocessor).
A Government is an Intelligent System.
A Society is an Intelligent System.
The Human Race is an Intelligent System.
One of the directors Coordi mentions is the Environment. This amounts
to the observation that groups must interact with
groups/resources/events/pressures from outside the group. Another way
of slicing the nature of processes is to note that processes always
involve:
(2) A process definition (persistence)
A current state (memory)
A defined set of operations (a “processor”)
Communication outside the group (I/O)
Communication within/between parts of the group (I/O)
But the ability to operate isn’t the same as the ability to maintain an
organization through time. Each one of the examples in (1) are able to
execute processes. Furthermore, each example in (1) have an
implementation of the constructs described in (2). This allows an
intelligent system to operate, but it isn’t enough for self-
organization.
Self-organization requires that roles be defined, expanded, and refined
through time. Furthermore, processes must be preserved though periods
when the resources to support those processes are not available. So
additionally processes have the following components:
(3) A Definition/Deployment Mechanism for the processes
A means of expression of these definitions
A means of execution of these processes
With all of this in mind, can I derive 10 directors? Hmmm.
1) Environment – Source of resources, dump for waste,
development pressures
2) Inventor/Evolution/Developer – The generation of new
processes for the system
3) Library/History/Knowledge – The total set of processes
for the system
4) Educator/Teacher/Transcription/Differentiation – Defining
a part to serve a role in the system.
5) Coordination – Communication between parts of the Group
6) Marketing/Exporter – Presentation of the group to the
environment
7) Lookout/Spies/Observers – Presentation of the environment
to the group
8) Research/Sex – The acquisition of process definitions from
outside the group
9) Garbage Removal/Resource reclamation – Collection and
removal of unwanted/unneeded by products
of processes
10)Propagation/Sex – The spawning of new groups configured
to behave under nearly the same rules as
the original group.
I very much doubt this is very close to Coordi’s list, but I wanted to
get something out there for discussion.
-- Paul
Coordi
understanding and find the directors, you mentioned TWO!!
But what am I going to DO? Evolve, Evolve, Evolve!!!! Escape to another
thread!!
CC
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tmk8e$mvo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 1) Environment - Source of resources, dump for waste,
> development pressures
> 2) Inventor/Evolution/Developer - The generation of new
> processes for the system
> 3) Library/History/Knowledge - The total set of processes
> for the system
> 4) Educator/Teacher/Transcription/Differentiation - Defining
> a part to serve a role in the system.
> 5) Coordination - Communication between parts of the Group
> 6) Marketing/Exporter - Presentation of the group to the
> environment
> 7) Lookout/Spies/Observers - Presentation of the environment
> to the group
> 8) Research/Sex - The acquisition of process definitions from
> outside the group
> 9) Garbage Removal/Resource reclamation - Collection and
> removal of unwanted/unneeded by products
> of processes
> 10)Propagation/Sex - The spawning of new groups configured
Rich Cooper
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote
> Hmmmm. We need some clarification here. Can we separate the concepts
> of (evolution/development) from (genetic exchange/self organization)?
> Let's try.
>
> First, self organization does not require evolution.
True, evolution enables self organization, but self organization doesn't
require solely evolution to implement it.
> In fact, evolution is very rare, since changes tend to destroy, not
> help, organisms. Same thing with computer systems, since new code
> tends to be more buggy than established code.
But my research interest is in ways to automatically generate software
that performs a specified function using a database of code fragments.
The idea is to build a self organizing program using learning algorithms
and performance measures. Evolution is a reasonable analogy for
this kind of system.
Examples of very simple organisms, like Luca (last universal common
ancestor), which can reproduce and survive long enough to mutate
interest me, and satisfy the basic definitions of intelligence. I would
rather start with simple forms like that than with unachievable goals
like speech understanding that won't be within reach any time soon.
-Rich Cooper
Rich Cooper
George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote
> To me intelligence refers to the ability levels of learning and
> adjusting to new environments. To me an intelligent system is a system
> that can learn and adjust to changes. A single microbe cannot learn or
> adjust to new environments, so it is not intelligent.
Yes, microbes do learn. Even bacteria have sensors, memory, and
adaptation to new environments. For details, see "Genome", by
Matt Ridler. He has a lot of examples of adaptation based on
genetic function.
-Rich Cooper
> A business is no
> other than a group of people, so yes, a business is an intelligent
> system.
The individuals learn, and are intelligent systems. But the business
is a concept, not an actual thing. A business is a financial entity that
is formed by a group of investors and managed to obtain an agreed
upon goal. It's stretching the definition to say a business "does"
or "acts" whether intelligently or not. A business is more like a
line drawn around items of property that the business owns, but
the investors and employees are the ones that actually make use
of the items owned by the business.
-Rich Cooper
paul...@my-deja.com
xant...@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote:
> <paul...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > * have more money that Microsoft
>
> >> Microsoft is an abstract legal entity, has no money.
>
> >As a legal entity under the law, Microsoft certainly is able to hold
a
> >bank account.
>
> Buzzzt! Sorry, Microsoft the legal entity can do no such thing. If
it
> could, it could sign checks on that account, and it cannot, a human is
> required _by_ _law_ to perform that function.
spliting hairs.
> > And one of Microsoft's greatest assets is its employees, that have
> > legal agreements to work for that legal entity.
>
> Strangely enough, again, those agreements are not signed nor legally
> signable by "Microsoft the legal entity", but by Jane H. Resources,
the
> human representitive authorized to sign employment contracts at
> Microsoft.
more hair splitting. (hmmm who does the "representitive" represent? But
now *I* am hair splitting! Sorry! ;)
> I was raised by a lawyer, before arguing law with me, you might save
us
> all a little time by learning some.
At last an explanation for the hair splitting! And I by a doctor! This
may explain why we have such difficulty communicating! :D
Look, nobody else in this discussion is taking a strict legal
perspective, and I really don't see how that pertains to this
discussion. Nobody has suggested that some legal paper somewhere can
*do* anything. This is about a group's ability to organize itself and
accomplish things beyond what individuals alone can accomplish. This
self organization is Coordi's concept of intellegence. He can correct
me if I am mistaken, but the last exchange (in this thread) was
paulsn:
If I read Coordi right (and he can correct me
if I am wrong), the definition of intellegence
he is discussing is that of the abilities of
these groups to organize, provide direction over
time, identify and achieve goals, etc.
Coordi:
That is True!
> >Besides,
> >when one talks about Microsoft, one is talking about a more human
> >understanding of a group of people (like the church, or the Lion's
> >club, etc.) This isn't that confusing, and Microsoft was merely an
> >example raised by someone else in the thread.
>
> Except, of course, that the originator of this thread was explicitly
> _not_ talking about the people comprising the group as individuals,
but
> the group as an abstract entity, and went far out of his/her/its way
to
> make that abundantly clear. I was sired by a general semanticist,
> before splitting hairs on interpretations of wording with me, learn
> _lots_ and _lots_ of English.
A group like Wheat or a human. These are only groups if one views them
as groups of cells. Or groups of microbes. A business or a
government, which are intelligent because they represent groups of
people. Coordi can correct me if I am off base here.
I have no complaint with your own ability as a general semanticist, but
I guess I would like you to explain how your understanding of
an "abstract entity" applies reasonably to all the examples of
intellegent systems Coordi has discussed in this thread. Or even to
exactly how that applies to groups of people (since not all groups of
people are at the same time an abstract legal entity, yet still
demonstrate the same dynamics).
> >You want to make your points about the worthlessness of group
behavior
> >and self organization, forget Microsoft and illustrate it with the
> >group *you* most care about and are impressed with.
>
> Why? Mine is not the task to support that side of the discussion, but
> to deride it. Groups as abstract entities do not impress me. The
> people gathered to comprise them often do, but that is not at all the
> point at issue.
Slice my comments as you have, and you can avoid the question. I
didn't ask you to support some side of this discussion, but rather to
illustrate your complaints with an entity that doesn't have such
emotional content for you. I am trying to understand what your
objections are, but it is difficult because most of what I get from
your statements is that you don't like Microsoft.
>
> >> But that is not at all what Coordi's claim was. He/she/it claimed
> >that
> >> abstract entities which might or might not be comprised of humans
as
> >one
> >> component were "more intelligent" than individual humans, which is
> >arrant
> >> nonsense on its face. If you insist on arriving late at the
> >discussion,
> >> at least catch up before taking sides.
>
> >The discussion is about intellegence as "self organization". The side
> >arguement is about the lack of intelligence in groups. Achievements
> >are presented as an example illustrating the intelligent effects of
> >such "self organization".
>
> Sorry, the discussion has _nothing_ to do with self organization, I
> tossed in the part about emergent behavior myself as part of an
> example. The discussion, flawed as it is, is about some undefined
> concept call Directors (of Artificial Intelligence, I think). Like I
> said, catch up before choosing sides.
It does have to do with self organization, in part. Read the thread,
since I raised this point and Coordi agreed (as quoted above).
> >Kent, there is an intellegence to groups. Take a car. Can you find
me
> >someone that would know how to build one by themselves, with
absolutely
> >no help from anyone else? Or a cell phone? Heck, how about a piece
of
> >notebook paper?
>
> That it takes more than one hand to build a car doesn't make the
> assembly line a self aware entity. Carry the present tendency to
> replace humans with robots in assembly line manufacturing to its
> logical conclusion (already accomplished in Japan for some assembly
> lines) and notice how ridiculous your argument becomes; you now have
an
> "intelligent group entity" comprised of no intelligent or self aware
> components whatsoever.
Avoid the question and the point. I didn't ask you to find someone who
builds one of these products, only one that *knows* how to do it. As I
understand this thread, it is a discussion about intelligent systems,
which have (roughly, since Coordi hasn't fully defined what he/she is
talking about) the qualities of distributed knowledge and intellegence,
i.e. the ability to propagate that knowledge through time, educate
parts of the group, identify goals and coordinate efforts to achieve
them, etc.
> >At the very least we have to buy parts and supplies, but those come
> >from other people.
>
> I'm afraid you are adrift in a sea of your own confusion by now.
Ahh, but the sun is bright, the waves are calm, and the gulls crying in
the distance bring no sorrow!
> >Forget Microsoft, and let us discuss Hulman & Company (since your
> >hatred of Microsoft seems to fry your ability to reason).
>
> You haven't been taking careful notes.
>
> I don't "hate" Microsoft. It is an abstract entity, incapable of
> noticing my "hatred".
>
> [It seems also incapable of responding to the many job
> applications I've sent over the years offering to come in with
> a large club and beat to death the entire QA staff and
> management, as it happens, but that is probably a side issue
> tangentially related to the fact that I am not a "Microsoft
> millionaire" and very certainly never will be.]
>
> I despise the products that come bearing the MS label, but that is
just
> the result of 18 years of being disappointed without a single
exception
> in my naive (and ever diminishing) expectation that what my employer
> bought for me to use bearing that label would in fact work with some
> acceptable degree of reliability and predictability.
> >How many people does it take to make a can of Clabber Girl Baking ...
>
> Do you have any idea how little I care to try to argue your side of
the
> issue for you?
You continually demonstrate the need to place this discussion in a
context that doesn't generate such an emotional response from you. I
am willing to consider the possiblitity that you might have some valid
point somewhere among these rants, but who can tell if you refuse to
move this discussion over to some other frame of reference with less
emotional content?
I *don't* care about Microsoft and their faults. This discussion has
nothing to do with Microsoft or their qualites/faults/legal
standing/QA/money/honesty/evil nature. It is about the possible nature
of intellegence to require a group of interacting parts, i.e.
Intelligent Systems.
I didn't ask you to switch sides in this discussion, I asked you to
illustrate your objections with another company. I randomly picked the
least objectionable company I could think of, Hulman & Company, the
maker of Clabber Girl Baking Powder. I can only hope that this company
would not generate a desire on your part to go beat anyone in their QA
department to death. If we could find a context that avoids such
desires/rants, it might go along way towards getting this discussion
back on track.
Reed Ulvestad
little more clearly. This strikes me as a very similar problem to one that
exists (existed?) in biology. Claiming group intelligence is like claiming
group selection. There is no real physical entity to act as the central
repository for the group, so I think that the solution is much the same as
the biological solution. There is no group intelligence, there is only the
appearance of it which emerges from multiple individual intelligences which
interact according to a prescribed set of rules. The Selfish Neuron? :) I
agree that much more can be accomplished by a group of individuals than by
one individual alone, but it is not because some new entity is created when
two or more individuals get together.
paul...@my-deja.com
My point is this: Evolution/Development is different from
selection/configuration. This is true in computer systems and
biological systems alike. If you are using a database of code
fragments, which stage are you working with? Why not both?
And I agree with your view of speech understanding.
paul...@my-deja.com
> > A business is no
> > other than a group of people, so yes, a business is an intelligent
> > system.
>
> The individuals learn, and are intelligent systems. But the business
> is a concept, not an actual thing. A business is a financial entity
that
> is formed by a group of investors and managed to obtain an agreed
> upon goal. It's stretching the definition to say a business "does"
> or "acts" whether intelligently or not. A business is more like a
> line drawn around items of property that the business owns, but
> the investors and employees are the ones that actually make use
> of the items owned by the business.
>
> -Rich Cooper
Yes, but when the smoke clears, would we be able to build the products
we build without the distributed "intellegence" of such groups (i.e. no
individual knows everything about what must be done to build the
product), as managed by such groups, as controlled by such groups, as
developed by such groups, etc. And I think the point is very telling
that the construction of such a group isn't very easy at all, even if
the effort involves the best individuals/resources pulled out of such
groups.
--Paul
paul...@my-deja.com
"Reed Ulvestad" <re...@hyperiontech.com> wrote:
> Ok, I've had some time to ponder now and I think I can state my
hypothesis a
> little more clearly. This strikes me as a very similar problem to
one that
> exists (existed?) in biology. Claiming group intelligence is like
claiming
> group selection. There is no real physical entity to act as the
central
> repository for the group, so I think that the solution is much the
same as
> the biological solution.
What biological solution are you referring to? The replication of
the "repository" (in the form of DNA) in each individual cell?
> There is no group intelligence, there is only the
> appearance of it which emerges from multiple individual intelligences
which
> interact according to a prescribed set of rules. The Selfish
Neuron? :) I
> agree that much more can be accomplished by a group of individuals
than by
> one individual alone, but it is not because some new entity is
created when
> two or more individuals get together.
I am not sure the need to define an entity is the key to this "group
effect". The key is more likely the need to define a distributed
information structure. The term "entity" is just a more easy way to
refer to one of these groups for purpose of discussion. Or it would be
if people didn't get so emotional about the particular groups used in
various examples.
> Reed L. Ulvestad
> Hyperion Technologies, Inc.
> re...@hyperiontech.com
>
>
Reed Ulvestad
> In article <MCCL5.46$Bf7.17...@news.frii.net>,
> "Reed Ulvestad" <re...@hyperiontech.com> wrote:
> > Ok, I've had some time to ponder now and I think I can state my
> hypothesis a
> > little more clearly. This strikes me as a very similar problem to
> one that
> > exists (existed?) in biology. Claiming group intelligence is like
> claiming
> > group selection. There is no real physical entity to act as the
> central
> > repository for the group, so I think that the solution is much the
> same as
> > the biological solution.
>
> What biological solution are you referring to? The replication of
> the "repository" (in the form of DNA) in each individual cell?
I was referring to Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene which is a quintessential
reductionist theory. It states that there is no greater purpose guiding
group or kin selection, rather observances of those types of behavior are
manifestations of each individual gene acting on its own selfish motivations
to be replicated.
>
> > There is no group intelligence, there is only the
> > appearance of it which emerges from multiple individual intelligences
> which
> > interact according to a prescribed set of rules. The Selfish
> Neuron? :) I
> > agree that much more can be accomplished by a group of individuals
> than by
> > one individual alone, but it is not because some new entity is
> created when
> > two or more individuals get together.
>
> I am not sure the need to define an entity is the key to this "group
> effect". The key is more likely the need to define a distributed
> information structure. The term "entity" is just a more easy way to
> refer to one of these groups for purpose of discussion. Or it would be
> if people didn't get so emotional about the particular groups used in
> various examples.
The distributed data structure is exactly what I believe doesn't really
exist. Instead, the behavior attributed to the distributed data structure
or the group "entity" is a manifestation of multiple individual entities
each with their own independent data and "doing their own thing", but
because they are acting within the same environment and upon each other
their actions can create effects that could be attributed to some other
entity.
The problem with the distributed data structure analogy is that it implies
that there is some sort of unifying (centralized) control structure. Maybe
we are saying the same thing. Here's another analogy to go along with the
data structure idea. Each individual is an instance of an abstract data
type with its requisite data and operations. These individuals then
interact, but may only access each other's data through the interface
provided, so data is not truly shared. Each individual then has its own
motivations that are more or less like other individuals motivations, so
that when their motivations cause them to interact they may work together
each with their own knowledge, but with limited access to each other's.
I just looked at the subject line and I guess some of this depends on what
exactly an intelligent system is. Are we talking about a system with some
"higher" intelligence guiding the whole thing or are we talking about
systems that contain intelligent components? I'm arguing that the former
does not exist.
-Reed
L.A. Loren
>
> Intelligent Systems are stated to (have? Be directed by?) 10 directors
> (Actors? Parts? Roles?). I must say that this has been a rather fun
> puzzle, and I think that Coordi has taken a very different view of
> Intelligent Systems than I have.
Actually Coordi has not proposed anything at all, not even a "view of
intelligence". He makes vague references at best.
>
> Start with the list:
>
> (1) A Microbe is an Intelligent System.
> A Human is an Intelligent System.
> A Business is an Intelligent System (multiprocessor).
> A Government is an Intelligent System.
> A Society is an Intelligent System.
> The Human Race is an Intelligent System.
And this is really all the further we need to go. This entire discussion
hinges on the fallacy of ambiguity (one of the informal fallacies).
Microbes and humans are individual entities, businesses, governments,
societies, and the human race are groups of individual entities.
Although it might make sense to talk about the intelligence of a group
of individuals (and you would really have to make a case for
this...vague hand waving just wastes everybody's time) this use of the
word "intelligent" differs from it's use with regard to an individual
entity like a microbe or a human. If you want to make the claim that
there are important similarities fine, then make the claim and back it
up with arguments, evidence, etc. But thus far Coordi has not made a
case for anything at all.
In fact, Coordi is just pulling the old "wizard of Oz" routine. He
generates this amorphous could of blue smoke, waves his arms, and hopes
that people will mistake his act for something like genuine insight. As
someone pointed out in this thread a long time ago, many people have
already done detailed analyses of the kind of thing Coordi is gesturing
towards. If the topic interests you then fine, go read the piles of well
thought out work that has already been done. Thus far Coordi has not
contributed anything to this line of inquiry. He has not proposed a
single thesis, an argument, evidence, anything at all that might be
interesting, informative, or useful.
Look, this guy is just a troll who feeds on attention, if we all just
stop feeding him he will go away (or die of starvation). Once again, if
you are interested in group intelligence (and its relation to individual
intelligence) there is plenty of ACTUAL work that has already been
done...go read it. But lets at least be clear about the fact that Coordi
appears to be wholly ignorant of the work that has been done in this
area. He's just a troll, and if we all stop feeding him he will go away.
So once again I implore you all, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.
Thank you.
Lew
Reed Ulvestad
news:39FF0ECC...@mitre.org...
I agree he is probably a troll, but at least there is discussion. Before
this thread the alife newsgroup had about 2 posts a day, so I hope it goes
on for a while.
-reed
Coordi
hehe
Cc
"L.A. Loren" <llo...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:39FF0ECC...@mitre.org...
Gordon D. Pusch
that corporations and governments do not represent a transhuman
``group intelligence,'' only selfish individuals acting in their
own self-interest far better than I could, so I won't even attempt
to amplify on it. I will merely draw attention to the following:
> I just looked at the subject line and I guess some of this depends on what
> exactly an intelligent system is. Are we talking about a system with some
> "higher" intelligence guiding the whole thing or are we talking about
> systems that contain intelligent components? I'm arguing that the former
> does not exist.
=EXACTLY=. ``coordi'' has very carefully =NOT= defined ``intelligent,''
``system,'' or ``director,'' claiming these things are ``self-evident.''
Furthermore, he/she/it has been using these terms so vaguely that
=ANYTHING= appears to be an ``intelligent system'' in his/her/its
viewpoint, be it a government, a corporation, a plant, or a microbe.
This is why I say ``coordi's'' carefully undefined ``self-evident'' definition
of ``intelligence'' is so vague that it is absolutely useless. Where does
``coordi'' draw the line between an ``intelligent'' and ``non-intelligent'' ?
Does ``coordi'' think a single _neuron_ is ``intelligent'' ? A _synapse_ ??
A molecule of acetylcholine ??? An atom ??? An atomic nucleus ????
A proton ????? A quark ?????? The still-so-far hypothetical subquark ???????
At the opposite end of the spectrum, does ``coordi'' think the Earth's
entire biosphere is ``intelligent'' ? The Solar System ?? The Galaxy ???
The Local Group ???? The Local Supercluster ????? The entire Universe ??????
If ``coordi'' doesn't define ``intelligent'' by at least excluding =ONE= subset
of the Universe as being ``unintelligent,'' if =EVERYTHING= is ``intelligent''
according to ``coordi's'' definition, then his/her/its use of ``intelligent''
is of absolutely no utility whatsoever. It reduces to the zen-like tautology
``everything is everything'' --- which is absolutely useless to anyone,
regardless of whether or not it is true.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Archie Campbell
> the "repository" (in the form of DNA) in each individual cell?
>
> > There is no group intelligence, there is only the
> > appearance of it which emerges from multiple individual intelligences
> which
> > interact according to a prescribed set of rules. The Selfish
> Neuron? :) I
> > agree that much more can be accomplished by a group of individuals
> than by
> > one individual alone, but it is not because some new entity is
> created when
> > two or more individuals get together.
The group selection referred to was a pet theory of one Harrison or Hamilton
or some other 'H'-chromosome possessor ;) The theory was that individuals
would sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the group. This was
debunked by Dawkins (amongst others) in his books 'The Selfish Gene' and
'The Extended Phenotype'. Dawkins suggested that the appearance of group
selectivity was in fact one of the expressions of gene selectivity. The
hypothesis is best expressed by the Green Beard Hypothesis. If a gene causes
individuals to grow green beards, other individuals with green beards will
be more likely to mate with, and behave kindly towards, other individuals
with green beards. Likewise, the groups first introduced by H-person were
shown to be very closely related genetically, often members of the same
extended (non-phenotypically) family.
As an example, the familial bonds between siblings in sexual species whose
zygotes carry a random half of the bi-chromosomatic (er...) DNA will share
between 0.5 and 1 (or some other figures, work it out for yourself, since I
obviously can't) of their DNA, and so are likely to behave and look the
same, and it would be adaptive for their genes to support each other in
whatever they do.
In business, the individuals work for the good of the whole, since that
provides their success, and their efforts are only realized through the
actions of the group.
In newsgroups, people often communicate ideas and clarify the points of
others. When this happens, the communication is furthered.
Sorry to be a bore.
Arch
Coordi
entered a state of complete denial of anything and everything that I say. A
pure state of Artificial Intelligence!!
Cc
"Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1u29sz...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
Archie Campbell
attention that has enabled writers over the years to develop comprehensive
and imaginative means of ridiculing your behaviour.
The Troll metaphor beats the hell out of you. You even got my cryptic clue
wrong.
(remember the rant about bullshitters? Bullshitter has 11 letters. I asked
for 'Mosaic, animal behaviour in place of porcelain (10)'. Admittedly it was
a crap clue, which should have read something like 'Mosaic, inadvisable
animal behaviour in place of porcelain. (10)' or something, since the
solution was 'bullrushes'. It seemed like a good idea at the time. ;)
Coordi proclaimed in his follow-up to a very polite disregard of his
expletives that he prefers to cut straight to the point when conversing in
newsgroups. Such hypocrisy was beyond my ken.
I've had enough. But there's an interesting group selection / intelligence
sub-thread developing someway to the north of this one. Since Coordi hasn't
been on it for a while, I assume it's safe to contribute to that one.
This one should be reserved for chopping pieces off the troll whenever he
appears, to postpone his near-inevitable regeneration.
Coordi <news...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxEL5.6247$mu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> Oyahhaa, Hmm hehe,,siss me competitors are getting desperate!
>
> hehe
>
> Cc
>
> "L.A. Loren" <llo...@mitre.org> wrote in message
> news:39FF0ECC...@mitre.org...
> > paul...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip spot on critique of Coordi's lack of effort / insight]
[snip Wizard of Oz simile ]
Dominic Searson
1) 'I know something you don't know -- doo dah doo dah.'
2) You all suck
3) I rule
(plus a smattering of pseudo-intellectual babble)
This will enable anyone who can't be bothered to read the last 10 billion
posts on this 'subject' to jump into the fray fully prepared.
Dom
paul...@my-deja.com
I don't think I want to make statements about the existance or non-
existance of "higher" intelligence. However, I think we are talking
about systems with intelligent components. Given these systems, do
they not construct a larger, more complete intelligence? I don't know,
but various rants have not demonstrated any reasonable arguement
against such an idea.
Furthermore I think we are saying the same thing. These data
structures do exist, at least in biological systems, where access to
such distributed data is gained through interfaces at the higher level
as you described, as well as through more direct means such as through
genetic exchange. This model works pretty well for all the examples
Coordi gave at the start of this thread.
--Paul
paul...@my-deja.com
>
> And this is really all the further we need to go. This entire
discussion
> hinges on the fallacy of ambiguity (one of the informal fallacies).
> Microbes and humans are individual entities, businesses, governments,
> societies, and the human race are groups of individual entities.
Microbes survive, feed, propagate, etc. in groups. They have sex, and
organize themselves in ways that promote their survival. They may be
very, very simple compared to us, but still far more complex than the
systems we build and deploy.
A single microbe defines all of this behavior within its DNA, which is
selected for expression given its environment. This is rather complex,
if not intellegent, behavior.
Humans are multicelluar organisms.
> Although it might make sense to talk about the intelligence of a group
> of individuals (and you would really have to make a case for
> this...vague hand waving just wastes everybody's time) this use of the
> word "intelligent" differs from it's use with regard to an individual
> entity like a microbe or a human.
You might argue that a microbe is a single entity, but a human is a
group of roughly a trillon cells. I think you have made a good
arguement for the idea that intellegence *only* exists in groups,
rather than with entities.
> If you want to make the claim that
> there are important similarities fine, then make the claim and back it
> up with arguments, evidence, etc. But thus far Coordi has not made a
> case for anything at all.
I couldn't do a better job than you have.
> In fact, Coordi is just pulling the old "wizard of Oz" routine. He
> generates this amorphous could of blue smoke, waves his arms, and
hopes
> that people will mistake his act for something like genuine insight.
As
> someone pointed out in this thread a long time ago, many people have
> already done detailed analyses of the kind of thing Coordi is
gesturing
> towards. If the topic interests you then fine, go read the piles of
well
> thought out work that has already been done. Thus far Coordi has not
> contributed anything to this line of inquiry. He has not proposed a
> single thesis, an argument, evidence, anything at all that might be
> interesting, informative, or useful.
I agree somewhat. I would like to hear more substance from Coordi, but
it has been interesting none the less.
> Look, this guy is just a troll who feeds on attention, if we all just
> stop feeding him he will go away (or die of starvation). Once again,
if
> you are interested in group intelligence (and its relation to
individual
> intelligence) there is plenty of ACTUAL work that has already been
> done...go read it. But lets at least be clear about the fact that
Coordi
> appears to be wholly ignorant of the work that has been done in this
> area. He's just a troll, and if we all stop feeding him he will go
away.
I have not found any literature on this subject that relates to
computer architectures, software development, configuration management,
etc. which is my own interest. Perhaps you have some references you
could share?
I am interested in the subject. I would not quickly call anyone a
troll in any case. If I am interested, and it provides an opportunity
to view systems from a different prespective, I will post. If I get
tired of it all, I go somewhere else.
I see little reason to be rude.
--Paul
paul...@my-deja.com
"Coordi" <news...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, My God, you are catching on to the game, now separate knowledge
from
> understanding and find the directors, you mentioned TWO!!
>
> But what am I going to DO? Evolve, Evolve, Evolve!!!! Escape to
another
> thread!!
>
> CC
You should give a bit more feedback than that. From what I understand,
I have listed the ten, and the game is up.
--Paul
Reed Ulvestad
>
> I don't think I want to make statements about the existance or non-
> existance of "higher" intelligence. However, I think we are talking
> about systems with intelligent components. Given these systems, do
good
> they not construct a larger, more complete intelligence? I don't know,
no
> but various rants have not demonstrated any reasonable arguement
> against such an idea.
The point of my last post was that the systems do not "construct a larger,
more complex intelligence", they construct the illusion of such. When we
perceive the results of the interactions of multiple individual
intelligences they may appear to have a more complex intelligence, but in
truth it is simply the result of various individuals acting within the same
environment.
Of course, I said all of this before, and you're failing to understand a
concept does not make a statement of said concept a "rant"...
>
> Furthermore I think we are saying the same thing. These data
> structures do exist, at least in biological systems, where access to
> such distributed data is gained through interfaces at the higher level
Yes, but this doesn't imply a "more complete intelligence". It is only a
conglomeration of individual intelligences. As a test, try removing one of
the individual intelligences and you will find that unless one or more other
individuals in the same group are identical to it, the "system intelligence"
will have been diminished. This demonstrates that there is no "real" system
intelligence, there is only the individuals interacting.
> as you described, as well as through more direct means such as through
> genetic exchange. This model works pretty well for all the examples
> Coordi gave at the start of this thread.
I'm not sure how governments or businesses make a "genetic exchange",
perhaps you could elaborate?
Even two biological individuals do not really exchange genetic information.
They may combine their genetic information through the proper interface to
create a new, wholly independent individual. This would be analagous to
programmers creating an AI. Still no "system intelligence".
-Reed
Coordi
all single word concepts. To truly win the game you should also be able to
support your claim that any one of your words rise to the level of a
Director and is not a subset of one of more directors.
You are doing great! Although in your text you just stumbled over a couple
of the director words without understanding their significance.
C
<paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tnb3p$cja$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
me...@my-deja.com
gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
> "Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> > Over the last few years, work on the notion of "group level
selection" has
> > given some good reasons to believe in the "group mind hypothesis".
You
> > might disagree,
>
> Darned right! I have _never_ seen =ANY= evidence of a ``group mind;''
all
> my personal experience indicates that groups are in fact ABYSMALLY
STUPID,
> and that ``intelligence'' adds in parallel the same way resistors do:
> I.e., the sum of two wits equals a halfwit, and the intelligence of a
group
> is always smaller than the intelligence of the STUPIDEST member within
it!
>
> > but there is a growing body of literature in support of this, and
you
> > might prefer to disagree based upon an understanding of that
literature.
>
> There is a huge body of ``literature'' supporting the existence of
UFOs,
> alien abductions, free energy, fish falling from the sky, or any other
> stupid idea you care to name --- so ``literature'' proves nothing.
Not mention physics, mathematics, and so on. The mere existence
literature was not suggested as proof of anything. OTOH, you have
proved yourself to be a flaming idiot.
--
<J Q B>
L.A. Loren
> Microbes survive, feed, propagate, etc. in groups. They have sex, and
> organize themselves in ways that promote their survival. They may be
> very, very simple compared to us, but still far more complex than the
> systems we build and deploy.
Yes microbes are complex. Maybe even more complex than many of the
machines we build. Complexity is not a sufficient condition for
intelligence.
> A single microbe defines all of this behavior within its DNA, which is
> selected for expression given its environment. This is rather complex,
> if not intellegent, behavior.
It is complex, not intelligent.
> Humans are multicelluar organisms.
Yes.
[snip]
> You might argue that a microbe is a single entity, but a human is a
> group of roughly a trillon cells. I think you have made a good
> arguement for the idea that intellegence *only* exists in groups,
> rather than with entities.
I have made no such case. All intelligent creatures are comprised of
more basic parts. It does NOT follow from this that everything comprised
of more basic parts is intelligent. People are intelligent
multi-cellular organisms, but it does NOT follow from this every
organization comprised of people is intelligent. My position is that
some complex organisms are intelligent. The more basic parts out of
which they are made are not necessarily intelligent, nor are the larger
organizations that are comprised of these intelligent organisms.
[snip]
> I have not found any literature on this subject that relates to
> computer architectures, software development, configuration management,
> etc. which is my own interest. Perhaps you have some references you
> could share?
This is a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary topic, so relevant
references are going to depend almost entirely on which facet(s)
interest you. You might try Rodney Brooks work on subsumption
architecture at MIT, Mark Tilden is working with analog devices at Los
Alamos, The Santa Fe Institute is another good place to look. Those are
all in computer science and robotics. If you are willing to expand your
scope a bit there's Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Merleau-Ponty, K.
von Frisch, John Searle's Chinese Room argument and the many replies,
Winograd and Flores "Understanding Computers and Cognition", Maturana
(sp?) and Varella (sp?), and plenty more I'm sure. If you poke around
the holdings at a decent library I'm sure you'll find plenty of
information. If you can be more specific about your interests I can
narrow it down a bit (or try at least, this topic is only tangentially
related to my interests).
> I would not quickly call anyone a troll in any case.
I didn't do it quickly. I waited until I was quite certain he was a
troll. Now I'm sure...he's a troll.
> I see little reason to be rude.
Well I was actually going for hostile, not rude. Perhaps I overshot the
mark ;)
Cheers,
Lew
P.S. I apologize to all for having fed the troll.
Rich Cooper
> > that performs a specified function using a database of code fragments.
> > The idea is to build a self organizing program using learning
> algorithms
> > and performance measures. Evolution is a reasonable analogy for
> > this kind of system.
> >
> > Examples of very simple organisms, like Luca (last universal common
> > ancestor), which can reproduce and survive long enough to mutate
> > interest me, and satisfy the basic definitions of intelligence. I
> would
> > rather start with simple forms like that than with unachievable goals
> > like speech understanding that won't be within reach any time soon.
> >
> > -Rich Cooper
>
> My point is this: Evolution/Development is different from
> selection/configuration. This is true in computer systems and
> biological systems alike. If you are using a database of code
> fragments, which stage are you working with? Why not both?
Yes but development requires a human to do the development
at some point, if only to use hyperadvanced tools. I don't want
a human in the loop.
I want to build a program that goes over
the internet to get information, that analyzes, organizes, evaluates
information. Then it tries its past methods in reasonably
appropriate experiments to generate new information.
That's one generation. The next step is for the program to
replicate itself into various copies, with mutations where
appropriate, and generate the population for the next step.
The programs should be selected by people using them.
So programs people like, they will tend to keep alive. Those
that they find unlikeable, they will kill. People define value,
not programs. But the programs define themselves, not
people. That's my formulation of an independent intelligent
system which is self organizing. Think of it as a
gedankenexperiment. It might even be realizeable.
But that relates to the difference between Darwin's
theory and Lamark's. I think there is some genomic
mechanism that focuses mutation probabilities into more
useful distributions than the average. Many people
have concluded that Darwin's theory alone doesn't
fully explain evolution because the probabilities aren't
matching some benchmark calculations. A program
like the one I described could be an experimental
vehicle to prove or disprove hypotheses about various
evolutionary mechanisms.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
Rich Cooper
> we build without the distributed "intellegence" of such groups (i.e. no
> individual knows everything about what must be done to build the
> product), as managed by such groups, as controlled by such groups, as
> developed by such groups, etc. And I think the point is very telling
> that the construction of such a group isn't very easy at all, even if
> the effort involves the best individuals/resources pulled out of such
> groups.
>
> --Paul
If you remove all the people from Microsoft, there will be nothing left
to "act", intelligently, or otherwise. Read Dawson's Selfish Gene (which
you probably have already), and consider his arguments. Its not even
the individual who evolves, its the genome. Various genes can work
together and they appear in more individuals each generation. Other
genes are antagonists and they appear in fewer individuals each generation.
So the genes within the genome are the competitors for survival
predicates. The genome survives by finding combinations of genes
that allow it to use the environmental energies it has available at each
generation. Individuals are the instances of a genome in transition.
I agree that it takes a lot of effort to get people to work together
effectively, but that doesn't mean the group is the intelligent system.
If it were, the class of groups would evolve its own mechanism for
growth that would provide the energy so it wouldn't take efforts
in the future. And that is what happens through culture. We have
learned to formulate corporations, national constitutions, and other
ways of legally binding ourselves as a way to work in groups. But
that doesn't make the group itself intelligent. There are still a lot
of individuals who simply can't work in groups, and they can't be
forced to do so in any practical way.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
Luke Kaven
Reed Ulvestad <re...@hyperiontech.com> wrote in message
news:yVDL5.52$Bf7.17...@news.frii.net...
> <paul...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tmvrs$1uo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <MCCL5.46$Bf7.17...@news.frii.net>,
> > "Reed Ulvestad" <re...@hyperiontech.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, I've had some time to ponder now and I think I can state my
> > hypothesis a
> > > little more clearly. This strikes me as a very similar problem to
> > one that
> > > exists (existed?) in biology. Claiming group intelligence is like
> > claiming
> > > group selection. There is no real physical entity to act as the
> > central
> > > repository for the group, so I think that the solution is much the
> > same as
> > > the biological solution.
The notion of group-level selection is actively defended these days, and the
arguments in favor are worth entertaining. You might seen works over the
last 6 years by Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson. Their BBS article is
on the reprints site, and their book _Unto Others: The Evolution and
Psychology of Unselfish Behavior_ (Harvard University Press, 1999) offers an
introduction that is somewhat more accessible to scientists working in other
areas.
The problem you raise of whether there is a "real physical entity" to act as
the central "repository" for the group does not seem like a problem for
group-level selection. The group has a *causal* constituency which makes it
real enough an entity. Such a causal constituency, considered in Wesley
Salmon's terms as a "causal process" (as distinguished from a Russellian
"At-At" theory of causation), is sufficient to give the group the kind of
constituency required for the theory. A Salmon process is capable of
propagating a mark, which helps to underwrites theories about
representational/informational content. The theory is not committed to
physicalism, but if the world happens to be that way, then fine.
Non-corpuscular entities don't seem to be that troubling to the theory, so
long as the thing in question has the appropriate kind of causal
constituency (and causal history).
> > What biological solution are you referring to? The replication of
> > the "repository" (in the form of DNA) in each individual cell?
>
> I was referring to Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene which is a quintessential
> reductionist theory. It states that there is no greater purpose guiding
> group or kin selection, rather observances of those types of behavior are
> manifestations of each individual gene acting on its own selfish
motivations
> to be replicated.
This is certainly one of the big targets of those in favor of group-level
selection.
> > > There is no group intelligence, there is only the
> > > appearance of it which emerges from multiple individual intelligences
> > which
> > > interact according to a prescribed set of rules. The Selfish
> > Neuron? :) I
> > > agree that much more can be accomplished by a group of individuals
> > than by
> > > one individual alone, but it is not because some new entity is
> > created when
> > > two or more individuals get together.
The use of the term "emerges" seems to be popular, though I don't think
computer scientists know where it comes from. The "emergentists" of the
early 20th c. (C.D Broad, for example) were committed to the claim that
high-level entities were causally autonomous (which is fine), while
asserting that both the high-level and low-level entities were
simultaneously sufficient causes of a given phenomenon. This seems
problematic, at least to Kim, as it raises the spectre of "causal
overdetermination". Regardless, emergentism _is NOT a reductionist
thesis_ -- the high-level entities cannot be explained away by the low-level
entities.
> > I am not sure the need to define an entity is the key to this "group
> > effect". The key is more likely the need to define a distributed
> > information structure. The term "entity" is just a more easy way to
> > refer to one of these groups for purpose of discussion. Or it would be
> > if people didn't get so emotional about the particular groups used in
> > various examples.
>
> The distributed data structure is exactly what I believe doesn't really
> exist. Instead, the behavior attributed to the distributed data structure
> or the group "entity" is a manifestation of multiple individual entities
> each with their own independent data and "doing their own thing", but
> because they are acting within the same environment and upon each other
> their actions can create effects that could be attributed to some other
> entity.
When a spokeperson issues a release for your company, she is not speaking
for herself, is she? I wonder whether you are taking the computer metaphor
too seriously here. The notion of "data structure" does not carry so
gracefully out of computer science and into philosophy as is often wished.
> The problem with the distributed data structure analogy is that it implies
> that there is some sort of unifying (centralized) control structure.
Maybe
> we are saying the same thing. Here's another analogy to go along with the
> data structure idea. Each individual is an instance of an abstract data
> type with its requisite data and operations. These individuals then
> interact, but may only access each other's data through the interface
> provided, so data is not truly shared. Each individual then has its own
> motivations that are more or less like other individuals motivations, so
> that when their motivations cause them to interact they may work together
> each with their own knowledge, but with limited access to each other's.
>
> I just looked at the subject line and I guess some of this depends on what
> exactly an intelligent system is. Are we talking about a system with some
> "higher" intelligence guiding the whole thing or are we talking about
> systems that contain intelligent components? I'm arguing that the former
> does not exist.
I don't know if I would say that there is a "higher intelligence guiding the
whole thing" as though there were a central executive process. This is
again I think a misapplication of the computer metaphor. The picture is
better understood as a matter of causal constituency, function, selection,
and design. This theory, by the way, would be theoretically *prior* to the
theory that underwrites "Object Oriented Programming", which should be
considered as an "engineering tradition" and not a scientific development.
Just curious -- do you know what externalism is? I notice that computer
scientists, perhaps influenced by programming metaphors and Stuart Kauffman,
seem to fall unquestioningly into internalism.
As a thought experiment, you might consider the human animal as an example
of an incorporate agency, populated by belief-like entities, motivational
states, anatomical organs, and the like. Don't be fooled by the corpuscular
packaging. Your processes are mediated through many other agencies -- your
spouse, your parents, your children, your friends, your employer, your dog.
I happen to be partly appropriated by the Pepsi Corporation, since I can't
seem to live without a slow IV drip of Diet Pepsi.
Luke
Coordi
system of Knowledge.and.Understanding, you would be forced by the definition
to accept the fact that a group must be an Intelligent System. You could of
course promote a different definition of an Intelligent System than mine. Do
you have one?
C
"Rich Cooper" <richc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tnibg$goc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Coordi
to whether a Troll is Intelligent or not, right?
Here is another test:
Put one troll in a black box, put two trolls in an identical black box. Mix
up the boxes such that no one knows which box contains the two trolls. Then
ask questions of the boxes and see if you can determine which box contains
the two trolls. I think you could not tell the difference between one
intelligence (however small) and two.
In one case the single troll could simply act like two, whereas the two
trolls could simply as like one and you wouldn't be able to ask a question
that could tell the difference.
Am I wrong?
C
"L.A. Loren" <llo...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:39FF4843...@mitre.org...
Luke Kaven
Gordon D. Pusch <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m1u29sz...@pusch.integratedgenomics.com...
As much as I want to encourage Coordi to continue his studies in this area,
I would certainly not hold him up as anyone who can represent the interests
of this research program at this point. Those of you who are serious about
entertaining and perhaps arguing against the idea of group-level selection,
group-minds, teleofunctionalism, panpsychism, and the like, are best advised
to go to the primary literature. If you haven't read Ruth Millikan, William
Lycan, Fred Dretske, Peter Godfrey Smith, Paul Griffiths, Karen Neander,
Elliot Sober, David Sloan Wilson, Rob Wilson, Dan Dennett, Phil Kitcher, or
any of the others whose work best represents the state of this research
program, then you are missing it entirely. The discussion here never even
gets off the ground -- mostly because nobody will read. Its odd, because
there is such a huge gulf between what people think goes on in philosophy
and what actually goes on. No wonder the field gets marginalized by people
who manufacture straw arguments imagined to respresent key philosophical
developments, and then smugly burn them, as those this exercise has actually
produced anything meaningful.
Rich Cooper
Coordi wrote:
> But of course, if you were to use my definition of Intelligent System as a
> system of Knowledge.and.Understanding, you would be forced by the
definition
> to accept the fact that a group must be an Intelligent System. You could
of
> course promote a different definition of an Intelligent System than mine.
Do
> you have one?
>
> C
[Defn] An Intelligent System
-captures valid information from its environment about itself,
its competitors, its allies, and its energy supply
-organizes the information, developing useful correlations and associations
-evaluates the organized information, constructing measures of its own
performance to help it learn useful changes to make to itself
-generates new versions (mutations, or just copies) of itself
{Here, I must confess to a Lamarkian bent} investing more in the ones most
likely to be successful in the next generation
Intelligent systems adapt. The above is a specification of what minimal
adaptation consists of, and that is why I consider it a definition of
intelligent systems. I'm open to other definitions of course, but that is
my own present view of intelligence. If there were no concept of multiple
generations, a negative feedback control system could be considered
intelligent.
A canned system, e.g. an expert system that never changes its rules, is not
intelligent by that definition. Although expert systems may be useful in
certain (few) areas, they aren't intelligent IMHO because they can't learn.
There are learning algorithms. Neural net supporters consider their models
to be learning models. Certainly Tom Mitchell's book "Machine Learning" has
some excellent algorithms for forming concepts based on samples, and I
believe his work will become very valuable in the information glut age we
are now in. An expert system equipped with some of these algorithms might
be considered an intelligent system, but I wouldn't include it in my own
definition until it gets culled by other evaluators (e.g., by its users).
A group is not an intelligent system IMHO because it can't reproduce. That
doesn't imply that it can't change, because groups do split up (like
Standard Oil did, and Microsoft might have to soon). Groups are mental
imprints in our minds. They don't have a will of their own, their will is
the combined will of their members. We think by grouping concepts in the
famous seven plus or minus two chunks per higher level concept. But that
doesn't mean the higher level concept exists. It just helps us think and
communicate about concepts in a way that helps us get things done.
JMHO,
-Rich Cooper
Coordi
>
> Coordi wrote:
> > But of course, if you were to use my definition of Intelligent System as
a
> > system of Knowledge.and.Understanding, you would be forced by the
> definition
> > to accept the fact that a group must be an Intelligent System. You could
> of
> > course promote a different definition of an Intelligent System than
mine.
> Do
> > you have one?
> >
> > C
>
> [Defn] An Intelligent System
> -captures valid information from its environment about itself,
> its competitors, its allies, and its energy supply
Sounds like Understanding!
> -organizes the information, developing useful correlations and
associations
Sounds Like Understanding!
> -evaluates the organized information, constructing measures of its own
> performance to help it learn useful changes to make to itself
Sounds like Understanding!
> -generates new versions (mutations, or just copies) of itself
> {Here, I must confess to a Lamarkian bent} investing more in the ones most
> likely to be successful in the next generation
Sounds like passing on or duplication of its Knowledge!
>
> Intelligent systems adapt. The above is a specification of what minimal
> adaptation consists of, and that is why I consider it a definition of
> intelligent systems. I'm open to other definitions of course, but that is
> my own present view of intelligence. If there were no concept of multiple
> generations, a negative feedback control system could be considered
> intelligent.
Sounds like Understanding!
>
> A canned system, e.g. an expert system that never changes its rules, is
not
> intelligent by that definition. Although expert systems may be useful in
> certain (few) areas, they aren't intelligent IMHO because they can't
learn.
Sounds like Knowledge without Understanding!
>
> There are learning algorithms. Neural net supporters consider their
models
> to be learning models. Certainly Tom Mitchell's book "Machine Learning"
has
> some excellent algorithms for forming concepts based on samples, and I
> believe his work will become very valuable in the information glut age we
> are now in. An expert system equipped with some of these algorithms might
> be considered an intelligent system, but I wouldn't include it in my own
> definition until it gets culled by other evaluators (e.g., by its users).
Sounds like Understanding without Knowledge!
>
> A group is not an intelligent system IMHO because it can't reproduce.
Like maybe Mc Donalds has not reproduced? Groups can certainly outlive
individuals!
That
> doesn't imply that it can't change, because groups do split up (like
> Standard Oil did, and Microsoft might have to soon). Groups are mental
> imprints in our minds. They don't have a will of their own, their will is
> the combined will of their members. We think by grouping concepts in the
> famous seven plus or minus two chunks per higher level concept. But that
> doesn't mean the higher level concept exists. It just helps us think and
> communicate about concepts in a way that helps us get things done.
But the groups do have both Knowledge and Understanding!
An Intelligent System is simply a system of Knowledge and Understanding!
C
>
> JMHO,
> -Rich Cooper
>
>
>
>
Kent Paul Dolan
>First, self organization does not require evolution.
Probably true, since they are completely orthogonal concepts.
>In fact, evolution is very rare, since changes tend to destroy, not
>help, organisms. Same thing with computer systems, since new code
>tends to be more buggy than established code.
Sigh. Evolution is profoundly common; it has been the shared
experience of every species and subspecies extant and extinct. What
you are trying to describe, lacking the vocabulary to do so, are
beneficial mutations. Similarly, in the many variants of evolutionary
computer programming, one does not depend on the ever increasing
fitness of each newly born member of a population of trial solutions,
but on a severe culling mechanism which eliminates all but the improved
few. Not surprising, since we stole the concept wholesale from nature's
culling of the less fit (or less lucky, to put a fair face on the issue).
>In biological organisms, groups of organisms select for the best set of
>traits for their offspring,
This is past ignorance and straight on into drivel. On the off chance
you are a parent, how much "selection" did you impose on the genome of
your offspring. Anything past random chance of which sperm won the race?
Ancestors in evolution do not "select" traits for their offspring, though
they are the source of traits which are passed along. Ancestors _may_
have traits of their own (a nurturing nature, an instinct to defend the
group at cost of self, a circling up with the young in the protected
center) which promote the survival of their own offspring and of the
offspring of their cohort, but they do _not_ select their offsprings'
traits; they have no mechanism to accomplish such a feat. Humans are an
exception, the accomplishment is ours in the past tense as of this year.
>because organisms that don't do this die off.
No, they don't. My survival is entirely unrelated to my having
"selected traits" for any of my several children. It is profoundly
related to my having inherited traits from my ancestors. You are
running time backwards, and confusing individual survival with species
success.
>When developing software, the best set of libraries, operating
>systems, hardware, services are selected for use by an application.
While I will admit to only 40 years of software development experience,
I can claim never to have seen what you describe happen either in my
own organization or in any with which I came in contact. The tools
used in a software project are selected by being grandfathered in as
already owned and thus cheaper than more modern replacements, by
arriving as the favorite tool of a new hire, by political infighting,
by followership, and by higher management fiat. Quality is so rarely
considered as an attribute among these other competing forces as to be
safely ignored among the noise level forces.
>In
>both cases, this effort can be more considered organization rather than
>evolution.
Neither effort you describe exists in anything distantly resembling the
form in which you describe it. From false premises may any conclusion
whatsoever be derived.
>Computer systems always seem to involve coding. But the goals are to
>reduce this over time. Component based programming, OO, etc. all seek
>to reuse and reorganize existing code, and limit new code.
This same fairy tale has been recurring for the entire 40 years of my
experience, and I'm sure for the 15 years before. More accurate and to
the point was an early estimate that at the rate of growth of demand
for software technologists, that demand would soon exceed the
population. Compare the upward spiral of observable software
technology salaries and the upward ramp of described needs to import
software technologists because we cannot produce enough of our own, and
the real situation begins to emerge from your fog: programming produces
the demand for more programming, both because the product is of value
to the end user, and because better tools are of value to the
intermediary producer.
And just FYI, the most perceptible effect of object oriented
programming so far has been to lose to the software technology
community the valuable early Unix concept of groups of small, well
defined, interacting programs, and to take us back instead to the bad
old mainframe days of massive and monolithic programs comprehensible to
no one. The problem with classes and objects is that there is no
signpost anywhere to tell Those In Charge "this would be a good place
to stop adding to this festering pile of fewmeets and begin a new pile
instead." Where I work, source code files of tens of thousands of
lines apiece are stomping unimpeded into the mix yet again.
Like the earlier discipline of "a separately compiled program component
should fit on a 24x80 screen" (actually achievable even today with
Forth or APL or OOP kept under control), we will someday discover, or
in your terms "evolve", a new discipline that tells us: "more than this
many classes, member data elements, or methods create an unmanageable
mess: don't go there." Right now, the problem is not even recognized,
much less under investigation, and "if it hurts, stop doing it" is not
in the programmers' meme set. For now, we are stuck with the True
Believer mindset, for OOP and other "silver bullet" enthusiasms, and no
change or mechanism to begin that change is in sight, despite that
better ways are published and well known to the community.[1]
>The economic strings on development merely represent the selection
>pressures on the software we are developing.
There are certainly selection pressures on software, and by far the
most dominant one is "time to market": get there first with something
marginally acceptable, and build market share until there is no room
for competition to insert itself. Unfortunately this selection
pressure leads to the reality we see: poorly written software, rushed
to market long before it should have left alpha testing, and dumped on
the growingly suspicious user as if it had some chance of being even
marginally useful before patchlevel 5. As the market refuses to
rebel, there is no selection pressure in favor of quality software
produced at a pace that makes quality possible.
>That software can ultimately be combined in new and different ways.
That was then, this is now. We have big "interoperability conferences",
where the miracle is anything that can talk to anything. Back in the
days when Unix said "everthing is a stream of bytes", interoperability
was an issue only because "which byte goes at which end of the number"
was decided different ways by different vendors; network byte order
soon had that mess ameliorated.
>The need to develop self organization is independent from the
>requirements of development
I won't guarantee this, but I think that "develop self organization"
is an oxymoron. Perhaps you meant "develop systems which organize
themselves". Do a web search on software agents as a start toward
what you seek.
>--Paul
Grumbles,
xanthian.
===== random archival quality quote =====
They say that Jesus walked upon the water. What they don't tell us is
that it was in Iceland. Few people know this. In Iceland, we all can
walk upon the water.
-- Joel Frank, NPR
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<xant...@well.com> <xant...@aztec.asu.edu> <kdo...@ebay.com>
[1] See for example _The Capability Maturity Model_ from CMU's SEI.