cybernetics...

Main Page | Report this Page

Computers Forum Index » Computer Artificial Intelligence - Philosophy » cybernetics...

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

cybernetics...

Author

Message

Richard Heathfield...

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:55 pm

Guest

Don Stockbauer said:

<snip>

Quote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent" is suspect?

Perhaps, but it is a position frequently advanced in discussions about
science: "nothing is omniscient". (We had an example upthread, albeit
not in those precise words. If nothing is to be omniscient, it must
surely require an awful lot of computrons (and cluons). It is not
unreasonable, then, to conclude that /either/ there is an omniscient
being /or/ vacuums are computron attractors.

(We do talk a lot of tosh in c.p sometimes, don't we?)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
This line unintentionally left unblank

Michael A. Terrell...

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:00 pm

Guest

Don Stockbauer wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent" is suspect?

Really? What do you suspect? ;-)

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Alf P. Steinbach...

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:20 pm

Guest

* Michael A. Terrell:

Quote:

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Hi, I wonder if I can steal your sig?

(Of course, if you give permission then you have effectively denied the request.)

<url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect>

Cheers,

- Alf

Rich the Philosophizer...

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:42 pm

Guest

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:39:18 -0700, Don Stockbauer wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 24, 12:00 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Don Stockbauer wrote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent" is suspect?

Really? What do you suspect? ;-)

I suspect an infinite debate instantiating over all this.

Things get dramatically simplified when you open your awareness to
the higher dimensionalities:

http://www.godchannel.com

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Don Stockbauer...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:14 am

Guest

On Aug 24, 1:42 pm, Rich the Philosophizer
<philosobphi... at (no spam) example.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:39:18 -0700, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:00 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Don Stockbauer wrote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent" is suspect?

Really? What do you suspect? ;-)

I suspect an infinite debate instantiating over all this.

Things get dramatically simplified when you open your awareness to
the higher dimensionalities:

http://www.godchannel.com

Hope This Helps!
Rich

God and The Universe are identical concepts (pantheism).

Hope this helps.

Helps what?

Don Stockbauer...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:32 am

Guest

On Aug 25, 2:03 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Don Stockbauer wrote:

On Aug 24, 12:00 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Don Stockbauer wrote:

Perhaps the statement "Vacuums are computron sinks, and thus highly
intelligent" is suspect?

Really? What do you suspect? ;-)

I suspect an infinite debate instantiating over all this.

Are you really up for one? Is your will, and are all your shots up
to date? It can be quite stressful. :)

I suspect an infinite debate instantiating over all this.

Are you really up for one? Is your will, and are all your shots up
to date? It can be quite stressful. Smile

To quote a former US Pressydent now serving time near a small Texas
town, grubbing out mesquite brush by hand with an adze, confined by
the barbed-wire of his ranch:

BRING 'EM
ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JosephKK...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:04 am

Guest

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:39:18 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer
<donstockbauer at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Oh no, not another transfinite debate so soon. s.e.d had an 11000
poster recently.

JosephKK...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:09 am

Guest

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:05:21 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy at (no spam) example.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:02:57 -0700, RichD wrote:

What happened to cybernetics?

It's been superseded by Obamanomics?

Thanks,
Rich

Which will certainly be a bigger failure than Raygunomics. (A compound

ripoff)

Michael A. Terrell...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:01 am

Guest

"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:

Quote:

* Michael A. Terrell:

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Hi, I wonder if I can steal your sig?

(Of course, if you give permission then you have effectively denied the request.)

url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Cheers,

Only if you have no sense. ;-)

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Michael A. Terrell...

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:03 am

Guest

Don Stockbauer wrote:

Quote:

Are you really up for one? Is your will, and are all your shots up
to date? It can be quite stressful. :)

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

Mikus E_...

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:23 am

Guest

Willem <wil... at (no spam) stack.nl> states:
The concepts of 'before' and 'after' are aspects *of* existence,
so that question is meaningless.

So how does this differ from...
Bill Sloman <bill.slo... at (no spam) ieee.org> posting:
No. I believe that we haven't got a clue about what created the
universe, and I doubt that it is a question worth asking.

Well at least both will agree that they cannot explain the original of
all this mass and energy. (My, such a marked difference though from
the previous, lengthy “science trash” force-taught to grade-schoolers!
No? --- and is this though still going on?) But their stubbornness as
well persists. Whether by a remark of: Oh no, not another transfinite
debate so soon. s.e.d had an 11000 poster recently
or by:
I do believe that we have some fairly clear ideas about what created
us from pre-exisitng life-forms, and a divine creator doesn't seem to
be a useful hypothesis in that area.
While one though has to admit that the first remark (of 1100 posts)
indicates at the very least, true unresolve; the second remark is
intentionally biased, as science still hasn’t resolved the origins of
life. Come on, can we not remain open-minded until so?

I personally have always maintain that the simultaneity in DNA is not
from origin, but from ensuring that DNA does not get contaminated.
(Funny, as this is now beginning to be the real concern of today’s
MODERN geneticists? ---So do they now know something more than that
stubborn Bill refuses to ever know? ---But as well, people should
begin to realize that Darwinism should always only remain as a theory.
Must we expose the “fears” of Darwin had, causing the delay of the
“officialdom” his theory?)

Mikus E_...

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:29 am

Guest

Wolf k. must get hives whenever he watches the TV show, “Are You
Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?”
As... How dare they hint that there is nothing wrong with the English
language when it comes to teaching.

Does wolf k. then himself dare to claim that the real obstacle to AI
is the natural human language itself? So thinking and talking in
Esperanto won’t cut it either? And what of the programming language
LISP? ---Has it merely developed an artificial “speech” lisp when it
comes to intelligence?
BTW wolf k., there is something called “future perfect tense”.

Mikus E.

P.S. Intelligence seems invisible to a wiry wolf k.? Heck, I would
think current chat-bots could fool wolf. (Unless of course he used
“sixth-grade” English.) ---Hmmm, but could a basic chat bot ever be
able to register to vote if registration were allowable over the
phone? (I would say yes.) So let’s stop with the periodical slew of
“new” articles that desperately promote that silly Touring test. (---
Let’s stop in artificially extending the “life” of it.) Let’s also
realize that the “halting” problem relates with something entirely
different. (And that it took someone other than Touring himself to
“fix” those “halts”.)
P.P.S. So wolf k., what is the solution to this AI problem? Should all
the people adopt the way of the “new” Democrats? Then no matter what
the subject/question is, no real intelligence would be required for
the reply as only be a pre-recorded “sound bite” should meet the
“test”. ---Such a simple task for the “AI” programmer
then. ...“Houston, we have no problems with that New Democrat AI!”
P.P.P.S. So why is it that the likes of Touring (and wolf k.) befuddle
the adults and not the fifth-graders?
---And no, I am not looking for “11000” posts, ...only if he will
formally acknowledge that he himself thinks the problem is in the
language used to abstrate AI. (---Oh, one step at a time!)

Wolf K...

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:04 pm

Guest

Mikus E_ wrote:

Quote:

I don't watch that program.

Quote:

Does wolf k. then himself dare to claim that the real obstacle to AI
is the natural human language itself?

Yes, if your categories of "knowledge" and "reasoning", etc, are no more
than what your language tosses up (several puns there).

Quote:

So thinking and talking in
Esperanto won’t cut it either?

Esperanto is just a mish-mash of European languages. If you want a
better sense of how languages constrain thinking, try to learn a non-IE
language, such as Mandarin, or one of the Inuktitut dialects. What the
hell, study Klingon. Its inventor tried very hard to create a language
as unlike any Terran language as possible. He's a linguist, BTW, which
means he knows stuff about language that you don't even know you don't know.

Quote:

And what of the programming language
LISP?

LISP is a version of symbolic logic, which is a subset of human
language. Human languages do not capture all-there-is-to-know, logic
captures even less.

The AI community has historically overestimated the value of symbolic
processing, and of logic in particular. Some practitioners are beginning
to understand that symbolic processing (of any kind), while a sine qua
non, is nevertheless only part of what we call "intelligence." Exactly
how symbolic processing figures in "intelligence" is IMO nowhere near a
settled question.

Quote:

---Has it merely developed an artificial “speech” lisp when it
comes to intelligence?

Argument by pun is fun, but gets you no ware, artificial or know.

Quote:

BTW wolf k., there is something called “future perfect tense”.

Quote:

Mikus E.

P.S.

[snip glibness]

JosephKK...

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:15 am

Guest

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:04:32 -0400, Wolf K <wekirch at (no spam) sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Quote:

Mikus E_ wrote:
Wolf k. must get hives whenever he watches the TV show, “Are You
Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?”
As... How dare they hint that there is nothing wrong with the English
language when it comes to teaching.

I don't watch that program.

Does wolf k. then himself dare to claim that the real obstacle to AI
is the natural human language itself?

Yes, if your categories of "knowledge" and "reasoning", etc, are no more
than what your language tosses up (several puns there).

So thinking and talking in
Esperanto won’t cut it either?

Esperanto is just a mish-mash of European languages. If you want a
better sense of how languages constrain thinking, try to learn a non-IE
language, such as Mandarin, or one of the Inuktitut dialects. What the
hell, study Klingon. Its inventor tried very hard to create a language
as unlike any Terran language as possible. He's a linguist, BTW, which
means he knows stuff about language that you don't even know you don't know.

And what of the programming language
LISP?

LISP is a version of symbolic logic, which is a subset of human
language. Human languages do not capture all-there-is-to-know, logic
captures even less.

The AI community has historically overestimated the value of symbolic
processing, and of logic in particular. Some practitioners are beginning
to understand that symbolic processing (of any kind), while a sine qua
non, is nevertheless only part of what we call "intelligence." Exactly
how symbolic processing figures in "intelligence" is IMO nowhere near a
settled question.

---Has it merely developed an artificial “speech” lisp when it
comes to intelligence?

Argument by pun is fun, but gets you no ware, artificial or know.

BTW wolf k., there is something called “future perfect tense”.

Not in English. In English it's a mode. There are only two tenses in
English, both of them used to express indefinite time most of the time
(as every sentence in this paragraph does.) In English we use compound
verb phrases and modals to express most time relationships.

"Time" is always expressed in relation to the time of utterance, BTW.
All languages express time of utterance ("present"), time before
utterance ("past"), time after utterance ("future"), and anytime in
relation to utterance (indefinite time). I don't know of a language that
violates this rule - it's a universal feature of human languages, IOW.
The only variations are in what verbal constructs are used to express
them (which in turn results in mandatory and optional expressions of
some time relationships.) In English (and other Germanic languages)
narrative, present, past, and future must be expressed, and this rule is
so strong that when the indefinite present is used by the narrator to
describe what is happening, we call it the "narrative present".
Normally, the indefinite present is used for general (anytime)
statements, a rule that is so strong that most English speakers will add
"now"/etc to indicate that they are expressing an actual present. -
It's these matters of grammar and usage, BTW, that 6th grade grammars
ignore, thereby misleading the smarter students who are understandably
confused when the Teacher's exposition doesn't reflect their experience
of the language.

There are very few universals in human languages. That "time" is one of
them is, as they say, suggestive.

Mikus E.

P.S.

[snip glibness]

Just to bust your bubble. There are languages with time senses that
are so different than those English that they effectively have nothing
in common. It could seem that the other language had no time sense.
Compare the time senses of Hopi, Maori, Mbuntu, Cantonese, Xhosa,
Mandarin and others to that of English.

Mikus E_...

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:07 am

Guest

Quote:

Argument by pun is fun, but gets you no ware, artificial or know.
Hey, even you acknowledged its pun-ness factor.

Quote:

BTW wolf k., there is something called “future perfect tense”.

Not in English. In English it's a mode. There are only two tenses in
English, both of them used to express indefinite time most of the time
(as every sentence in this paragraph does.) In English we use compound
verb phrases and modals to express most time relationships.

I quote from a published dictionary:
future perfect --
2. the future perfect tense
3. a form in this tense

(Wolf k. spending way too much time with those “knowledgeable”
linguists? Hey didn’t they come up with that Esperanto; you know, the
one you surveyed as “just a mish-mash of European languages”? Didn’t
they try to target the scientific community? And yes, yes, those same
linguists have been tampering with the grade-school books as well?

Hmmm, by your: "It's these matters of grammar and usage, BTW, that
6th grade grammars
ignore, thereby misleading the smarter students who are understandably
confused when the Teacher's exposition doesn't reflect their
experience
of the language."
So just what are you trying to say here? That linguists are inept when
it comes to reality? That teachers are merely reciting? That unguided
humans are a natural for a “better” language, perhaps making life
simple for the AI constructor? ---So let’s start using baby talk. (I
am not trying to be facetious here! ---As a quality of human idea
inter-reaction is the attempt to understand the other’s intent
whenever the speech is not as precise as desired.) Would that pass the
Touring test or would it result in a bigger “farce”?)

Since you seemed way too anxious to insert “[snip glibness]” ...
I ask again (as I did both at the start and end of my previous post):
Do you consider language as a stumbling block in the quest for AI?
....Or do you feel you have adequately answered that via “the AI
community has historically overestimated the value of symbolic
processing”?
But are not all languages symbolic by nature? So why even consider one
over another?

Hmmm, so to make the task seem again easier, maybe we should only
consider a subset of the human language, creating yet another “better”
one that this time should be more appropriate to logic or computation?
(But would then the Vulcan language always fair better? ...Or are they
too much into self-logical, thus making their language less suitable
for AI? ---ironically, most would think that it would be very well-
suited for AI.) But as wolf k. might now express, still again too much
emphasis on logic? (...Still, seems so ideal though. And far better
than Klingonese! Or should that be labeled as Klingonian, Klingonic,
or Klingo? Surely not plain Klingon!)

Now assuming that wolf k. was not being sarcastic when he indicated
that linguists are “experts”, first via his: “He's a linguist
[referring to the creator of Klingon “language”], BTW, which means he
knows stuff about language that you don't even know you don't know.”,
....Because by his previous breath: “It's these matters of grammar and
usage, BTW, that 6th grade grammars
ignore, thereby misleading the smarter students who are understandably
confused when the Teacher's exposition doesn't reflect their
experience of the language.”
I would suggest that what is needed for AI “language” is not the
linguist, but the philosophy!

Recall that the early Greeks (with their hordes of self-appointed
philosophers), came up with a precise language to better express/
explain their thoughts/culture. So if wolf k. feels that language has
been an “AI hindrance”, perhaps the AI community should consider
employing philosophers over linguists.

Yes, the spoken AI words should then always be very precise (thus
making life easier for the AI coder), as transitory hip talk would not
be in it’s memory banks. (...Don’t the French boast that their
language from the 1500s can be fully understood today! ---So is this
one country that really has supported their linguists?! But isn’t it
also the French whom often blame other linguists for WWII? ...For does
not historian Jacques Barzun convincingly point his finger towards
most pre-WWII German linguists?)

But hey, gone will be the (representative) phase “bad is good”, for
now when the AI machine talks of passion, it will will have to always
qualify itself with either “plain” passion or “bad passion”. (---With
the normal/“plain” only lacking the implied and redundant qualifier of
“good”. ) Hmmm, but doesn’t this bode ill with the “change-for-the-
sake-of-change” group? Will they not try to always impose their
“badness”? ------Yes, but given AI base “sound logic” routines, never
a problem.

Mikus E.

P.S. Puns [the good ones], I hope; will still always be considered and
then understood by AI.

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

All times are GMT The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:10 pm Computers Forum Index